Is there a pundit, paid or unemployed, a political blogger, credible or ludicrous, or any American or America-watcher that hasn’t weighed in on what Obama will do once in office, i.e., what are the changes he will put into effect? I don’t think so. I think we can safely assume that just about anyone able to read a newspaper, gape at a TV, or stare dully into space while a radio personality bloviates, has an opinion on this matter, pro, con or off the wall.
So, attempting to side-step this skyscraper-size pile of pundit droppings, this exercise in speculative commentary will instead ruminate on a change I’d like to see, which could be seen as philosophical though I view it as quite pragmatic. The focus of this change is attitudinal more so than political, economic, environmental, foreign policy oriented, educational or health care-wise, though it encompasses all of these. The change I would like to see is a focus on and a redefining of – happiness. Yes, that’s right, happiness.
Let me say first off, I’m not talking about some kind of feel good, warm and fuzzy, mirth and laughter definition of happiness that’s sold on greeting cards and mind-numbing TV commercials. Secondly, I’m not talking about fulfilling some personal desire, attaining some object, living out some experience, enjoying some good fortune, attracting some sought after other, or even having some wish come true. This is not the happiness I’m talking about.
Happiness, as I am talking about it, is more akin to that adopted by the tiny Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan, which has developed a governmental policy they term Gross National Happiness or GNH. Happiness or GNH, like the U.S.’s GDP, is a collective measurement, albeit not in the goods and services produced. It is a quotient in “human well-being,” measured in terms of four key areas: “sustainable economic development, preservation and promotion of cultural values, conservation of the environment and good governance.”* Happiness in these terms is a very serious look at how to create the conditions for diverse human societies to live rich, satisfactory and moral lives. The focus here is not on individual economic well being, but more in terms of “human development” or “pluralistic growth.”
There is one important area or condition that is missing from these key ingredients in the happiness quotient, though it might be implied by “good governance,” and what needs to be added is a reaffirmation and a retrieval of human rights that have been so easily dismantled and discarded by the Bush Administration. Without returning to a national acclamation of individual human rights, so elegantly defined and expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights written into the United Nations Charter after WWII, then the society as a whole, any society, cannot fulfill the essential standards necessary for establishing the conditions for happiness; individually or collectively.
Among the articles in the Universal Declaration are:
• All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
• Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
• No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
It’s not possible to reproduce here all of the articles, but it would serve the reader well to look them up. It is a human rights constitution based on moral, ethical and lawful principles that should apply to every nation on earth.
The Bush/Cheney Administration has violated bedrock principles of human rights to a degree not seen before, and if an Obama Administration hopes to change what has been despoiled, then it will have to start here. As important as addressing the economy, Iraq and Afghanistan, health care and global warming, is assuring the safeguards that protect individual well-being.
Inextricably tied into the guarantees of human rights are the precepts of sustainability. Social commentator Steve Bhaerman, AKA Swami Beyondananda, writes: “We are burdened by a “natural debt”… We have deforested the rain forests, spoiled key habitats, scarred the landscape with strip mines, ruined our soil with chemical farming, and now peek oil seems to be peeking over the horizon. In addition to a financial system that no longer works, and a system that rewards creating money more than creating value [emphasis added], we face the additional problem of creating not just prosperity, but sustainability.”
I think it bears repeating – “creating money more than creating value.” Is this not at the core of our current economic system? Unbridled capitalism driven by greed, not need, is the infection that invaded our economy and laid it low. In a speech long ago at Riverside Church in New York, Martin Luther King said, “We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society.” Call to mind what recently happened at a Wal-Mart store sale when people in their blind rush to acquire, to consume, trampled to death a store employee who got in their way. These are not the actions of a person-oriented society.
As far as weighing in on Obama’s selection for his administration and cabinet, all I can say is that from this progressive’s view they’re very disappointing, cause for a lot of concern, and, while change from the current regime, are nothing more than a throwback to the Clinton neo-liberal years. Perhaps a President Obama can really set a new course and bring about the significant changes so desperately needed to the nation’s economic, health care, foreign policy, and alternative green energy systems. If the choices so far of “his team,” for the most part, are any indication, future directions look very questionable.
Do I think it’s likely there will be a shift in focus as to what comprises a happy or satisfactory existence both individually and collectively with the advent of a new political administration? I do not, but there is at least a possibility of a change in thinking and direction along these lines through an emphasis on sustainable economics and energy sources, conservation and protection of the environment, and a redefining of the importance of human rights and the value of individual service to the community at large. Anyway that’s my hope for the years ahead.
*The San Francisco Chronicle: “Economists Appraise Bhutan’s Happiness Model” by Don Duncan, 12/04/08
.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Monday, November 24, 2008
On the Passing of Jerry Parker
Sonoma journalist Jerry Parker died recently. This is in memory and honor of a man I knew and admired.
I knew Jerry Parker, I liked him, I admired his writing style and I’ll mourn his passing.
Jerry was writing a weekly column for this paper when I first came to town in the mid-80s, and I wrote in to the paper that it was the best thing about it. This did not endear me to the paper’s former editor. C’est la vie.
In those days Jerry’s column ranged from the intricacy and inherent beauty of the natural world, reminiscent of Thoreau, to critiques or commentaries on the political, social or environmental issues of the day, local and otherwise. His writing was incisive, succinct and direct to the matter at hand, but never hyperbolic or ranting. He was an iconoclast and a fierce critic of the cultural excesses and vanities he considered extraneous distractions. He was a serious man, and an astute observer of and witness to the failings of what he considered an overindulgent and superficial culture caught up in the pursuit of wealth and self-aggrandizement.
He was never petty or personally insulting, but he spoke his truth plainly and, in my estimation, poignantly. He had a great writing style, careful and precise, honed over many years in journalism, and inspired by a voluminous and well-read library of the literary masters. Just as well he could artfully explore the beauty of the natural world that he felt more attached to and aligned with than the human one. He could also take the reader on walks with him and his beloved dog Chester through the Sonoma hills, which gave one entry to his heart and soul and truly moral nature.
I got to know Jerry personally when I did some work around his very modest cabins off Warm Springs Road when he’d reached an age where he needed help with roofing or other small building projects. Around that time I started publishing a newsletter that focused on Sonoma City and Valley issues, featuring commentary pieces by local writers. After work we’d get into long political, sometimes philosophical discussions about all sorts of things, finding common ground in our critical and sometimes jaundiced view on the passing parade, and directions in which our country had been going. Or we’d talk about New York City where I hale from and where he lived and worked in the 40s, or about the dignity and nobility of dogs and how much we enjoyed their company, or about some of the writers, none contemporary, that he loved and I pleasured in learning more about.
He could certainly be irascible and extremely opinionated, but I always found him to be a gentle, self-effacing and non-egoic man. He had regrets and failings that he talked about, and probably loved books, and nature, and dogs as well as if not more so than most humans. He did speak glowingly about his wife and family, always remarking that he did not feel worthy of their love and devotion. Whatever his failings, real or perceived, he was a man of great character and deep substance, and Sonoma and the world beyond is the lesser for his passing.
If there’s a world beyond this one I hope it looks like the Sonoma hills and valley, and I’ll catch up with Jerry Parker and we’ll walk our dogs through the valleys of eternity. Maybe we’ll stop for a cold beer at day’s end.
See ya, Jerry.
Will Shonbrun
I knew Jerry Parker, I liked him, I admired his writing style and I’ll mourn his passing.
Jerry was writing a weekly column for this paper when I first came to town in the mid-80s, and I wrote in to the paper that it was the best thing about it. This did not endear me to the paper’s former editor. C’est la vie.
In those days Jerry’s column ranged from the intricacy and inherent beauty of the natural world, reminiscent of Thoreau, to critiques or commentaries on the political, social or environmental issues of the day, local and otherwise. His writing was incisive, succinct and direct to the matter at hand, but never hyperbolic or ranting. He was an iconoclast and a fierce critic of the cultural excesses and vanities he considered extraneous distractions. He was a serious man, and an astute observer of and witness to the failings of what he considered an overindulgent and superficial culture caught up in the pursuit of wealth and self-aggrandizement.
He was never petty or personally insulting, but he spoke his truth plainly and, in my estimation, poignantly. He had a great writing style, careful and precise, honed over many years in journalism, and inspired by a voluminous and well-read library of the literary masters. Just as well he could artfully explore the beauty of the natural world that he felt more attached to and aligned with than the human one. He could also take the reader on walks with him and his beloved dog Chester through the Sonoma hills, which gave one entry to his heart and soul and truly moral nature.
I got to know Jerry personally when I did some work around his very modest cabins off Warm Springs Road when he’d reached an age where he needed help with roofing or other small building projects. Around that time I started publishing a newsletter that focused on Sonoma City and Valley issues, featuring commentary pieces by local writers. After work we’d get into long political, sometimes philosophical discussions about all sorts of things, finding common ground in our critical and sometimes jaundiced view on the passing parade, and directions in which our country had been going. Or we’d talk about New York City where I hale from and where he lived and worked in the 40s, or about the dignity and nobility of dogs and how much we enjoyed their company, or about some of the writers, none contemporary, that he loved and I pleasured in learning more about.
He could certainly be irascible and extremely opinionated, but I always found him to be a gentle, self-effacing and non-egoic man. He had regrets and failings that he talked about, and probably loved books, and nature, and dogs as well as if not more so than most humans. He did speak glowingly about his wife and family, always remarking that he did not feel worthy of their love and devotion. Whatever his failings, real or perceived, he was a man of great character and deep substance, and Sonoma and the world beyond is the lesser for his passing.
If there’s a world beyond this one I hope it looks like the Sonoma hills and valley, and I’ll catch up with Jerry Parker and we’ll walk our dogs through the valleys of eternity. Maybe we’ll stop for a cold beer at day’s end.
See ya, Jerry.
Will Shonbrun
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
The Real Culprit
It’s all the fault of the free-market deregulators. No, no, it’s all the fault of the greedy, sub-prime mortgage lenders. Un unh, it’s those rapacious speculators who played the market like slick Enron gamers. Wrong again, it was the sickeningly usurious banks and Wall Street geeks who shuffled around bundles of crappy mortgage-backed securities from one institutional dupe to another. Think again, John and Jane Public, it’s all because China got too filthy rich, and dumped a gazillion dollars into U.S. markets, thereby inflating, and devaluing, and doing whatever it is that they did to bring financial ruin to the world. Let’s see, has anyone been left out? Oh yes! It’s the credit industry, the credit mentality, the buy it now, pay for it…whenever, virus that’s infected Americans for the last half-century. It’s the entitlement mongers. It’s you, and me, and the rest of the 95% of us who don’t make $3 million bucks a year, and don’t care if we’re in debt up to our nostrils. Of course, it was all OUR FAULT!
Oh, it’s so simple. How could we have not known it was all our doing – this whole financial meltdown? It was us! We wanted houses, and cars, and colleges for our kids, and medical care, and wage increases, and vacations, and, you know, all those outrageous extravagances, like food and shelter and clothes, and so forth. Greedy, bad, welfare-grubbing, no-account Americans who want government to coddle them and buy them lunch. Now we know who got us, 95% of us anyway, into this mess. It’s our own something-for-nothing, screw-you-I’ve-got-mine, nothing-counts-but-me, you know, human nature. How could we not have seen that?
So, okay, what are we going to do about it? Everyone knows you can’t change human nature. Well, everyone except evangelicals and psychoanalysts. Left to our own devices, we humans are a brutal, aggressive, club-wielding lot only out for our own survival. If you don’t believe me go to any playground. It’s horrifying. They don’t call it a jungle gym for nothing. All right, all right, we know it was us and our unbridled, ego-driven human natures who are responsible for THE CRASH. Does that mean it’s all hopeless and we’ll be living out the Mad Max scenario for the next millennia?
Of course not fellow (by nature) miscreants. Like the (nausea inducing) song says, “ We will survive.” Sure there’ll be a few rough years - cardboard box housing, bread and ketchup dinners, dumpster-diving employment, - but we’re Americans! We’ll bounce back! We always do. We may have to forego some of the luxuries for a while – jobs, housing, food, that kind of stuff, - but we’ll be back stronger than ever. We rebounded bigger and better from other crashes, and this one’s no different. The Dow will rise again, new funding will ride in from somewhere, we’ll be able to borrow our brains out once again, and, and…we’ll probably repeat the whole circus again sometime down the line. It’s human nature.
Oh, it’s so simple. How could we have not known it was all our doing – this whole financial meltdown? It was us! We wanted houses, and cars, and colleges for our kids, and medical care, and wage increases, and vacations, and, you know, all those outrageous extravagances, like food and shelter and clothes, and so forth. Greedy, bad, welfare-grubbing, no-account Americans who want government to coddle them and buy them lunch. Now we know who got us, 95% of us anyway, into this mess. It’s our own something-for-nothing, screw-you-I’ve-got-mine, nothing-counts-but-me, you know, human nature. How could we not have seen that?
So, okay, what are we going to do about it? Everyone knows you can’t change human nature. Well, everyone except evangelicals and psychoanalysts. Left to our own devices, we humans are a brutal, aggressive, club-wielding lot only out for our own survival. If you don’t believe me go to any playground. It’s horrifying. They don’t call it a jungle gym for nothing. All right, all right, we know it was us and our unbridled, ego-driven human natures who are responsible for THE CRASH. Does that mean it’s all hopeless and we’ll be living out the Mad Max scenario for the next millennia?
Of course not fellow (by nature) miscreants. Like the (nausea inducing) song says, “ We will survive.” Sure there’ll be a few rough years - cardboard box housing, bread and ketchup dinners, dumpster-diving employment, - but we’re Americans! We’ll bounce back! We always do. We may have to forego some of the luxuries for a while – jobs, housing, food, that kind of stuff, - but we’ll be back stronger than ever. We rebounded bigger and better from other crashes, and this one’s no different. The Dow will rise again, new funding will ride in from somewhere, we’ll be able to borrow our brains out once again, and, and…we’ll probably repeat the whole circus again sometime down the line. It’s human nature.
Is the War in Iraq a Local Issue?
If you could choose how to spend the tax dollars that provide federal government funding for our nation’s needs would you have that money go toward a universal health care system, affordable housing units, elementary school teachers, public safety, transportation and infrastructure needs, or to the continuation of war and occupation in Iraq?
*According to a study issued by MoveOn.org, using estimates based on congressional budget allocations and supplemental funding bills the cost of the war/occupation was $456 billion in 2007. According to Internal Revenue Service records used to compute the costs at a local level, war spending included $1.33 billion of taxes collected in the 6th and 1st Congressional Districts, which comprises most of Sonoma County.
In Sonoma County we’ve seen funding diminished for our schools, hospitals, libraries, environmental protections, transportation needs and affordable workforce housing. Three of our county hospitals are in dire financial straits and face closing their doors. Tuition for Sonoma high school graduates applying to UC and UCS colleges is skyrocketing, ranging from $17,000-$24,000 a year, and loans for higher education are financially crippling many families and students. Despite the downturn in Sonoma housing prices, entry level housing for essential Sonoma workforce services – education, public safety, health care, etc. – is still prohibitive, forcing longer out-of-town commute hours, and increasing highway deterioration, air pollution and greenhouse gasses. Who in Sonoma County has not felt the financial and social impacts related to the cost of this war?
And then there are the unquantifiable and devastating impacts on Sonoma families and their communities when Sonoma’s sons or daughters are killed or grievously wounded in Iraq. Such losses are inestimable and lived with for a lifetime.
The war machine has deployed California’s National Guard to Iraq, as it has the other states, of which Sonoma County has 200 members or so. By so doing Sonoma county and other regions are left vulnerable to emergencies and natural disasters. Thus the prosecution and elongation of this war/occupation puts all Sonomans in greater jeopardy.
President Eisenhower famously said in his Cross of Iron speech:
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.”
Schools, homes, roads and hospitals. How do you get more local than that?
The “war on terrorism” with Iraq as ground zero has given rise to illegal warrantless secret government surveillance on American’s phone calls and mail. Government domestic spying has not just been relegated to international calls as we were led to believe, but to collecting phone call data from tens of thousands of citizens as reported in the N.Y. Times and other media. We in Sonoma are not immune to these abuses of Constitutional rights of privacy, just as we are subject to certain provisions of the U.S.A. Patriot Act’s incursion into library and bookstore records.
The Iraq war has resulted in the use and contracting of torture and clandestine renditions for that nefarious purpose, and the elimination of judicial due process. Unprecedented and incredible! Besides putting our military in extraordinary danger (if captured), this reprehensible violation of the Geneva Conventions disgraces the model of American democracy in the eyes of the world, as we are all, Sonomans included, tarred with that despicable brush.
The theme of this edition of the Peace Press is sustainability. One of the meanings of the word sustain is: to bear up under; suffer or undergo. This begs the question: how much longer can this occupation of a foreign land be sustained – by our fellow countrymen or we in Sonoma?
The late, great Molly Ivins said in her last published column, “We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war.”
*Sources: The Santa Rosa Press Democrat, 8/17/07, and National Priorities Project, 2007.
*According to a study issued by MoveOn.org, using estimates based on congressional budget allocations and supplemental funding bills the cost of the war/occupation was $456 billion in 2007. According to Internal Revenue Service records used to compute the costs at a local level, war spending included $1.33 billion of taxes collected in the 6th and 1st Congressional Districts, which comprises most of Sonoma County.
In Sonoma County we’ve seen funding diminished for our schools, hospitals, libraries, environmental protections, transportation needs and affordable workforce housing. Three of our county hospitals are in dire financial straits and face closing their doors. Tuition for Sonoma high school graduates applying to UC and UCS colleges is skyrocketing, ranging from $17,000-$24,000 a year, and loans for higher education are financially crippling many families and students. Despite the downturn in Sonoma housing prices, entry level housing for essential Sonoma workforce services – education, public safety, health care, etc. – is still prohibitive, forcing longer out-of-town commute hours, and increasing highway deterioration, air pollution and greenhouse gasses. Who in Sonoma County has not felt the financial and social impacts related to the cost of this war?
And then there are the unquantifiable and devastating impacts on Sonoma families and their communities when Sonoma’s sons or daughters are killed or grievously wounded in Iraq. Such losses are inestimable and lived with for a lifetime.
The war machine has deployed California’s National Guard to Iraq, as it has the other states, of which Sonoma County has 200 members or so. By so doing Sonoma county and other regions are left vulnerable to emergencies and natural disasters. Thus the prosecution and elongation of this war/occupation puts all Sonomans in greater jeopardy.
President Eisenhower famously said in his Cross of Iron speech:
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.”
Schools, homes, roads and hospitals. How do you get more local than that?
The “war on terrorism” with Iraq as ground zero has given rise to illegal warrantless secret government surveillance on American’s phone calls and mail. Government domestic spying has not just been relegated to international calls as we were led to believe, but to collecting phone call data from tens of thousands of citizens as reported in the N.Y. Times and other media. We in Sonoma are not immune to these abuses of Constitutional rights of privacy, just as we are subject to certain provisions of the U.S.A. Patriot Act’s incursion into library and bookstore records.
The Iraq war has resulted in the use and contracting of torture and clandestine renditions for that nefarious purpose, and the elimination of judicial due process. Unprecedented and incredible! Besides putting our military in extraordinary danger (if captured), this reprehensible violation of the Geneva Conventions disgraces the model of American democracy in the eyes of the world, as we are all, Sonomans included, tarred with that despicable brush.
The theme of this edition of the Peace Press is sustainability. One of the meanings of the word sustain is: to bear up under; suffer or undergo. This begs the question: how much longer can this occupation of a foreign land be sustained – by our fellow countrymen or we in Sonoma?
The late, great Molly Ivins said in her last published column, “We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war.”
*Sources: The Santa Rosa Press Democrat, 8/17/07, and National Priorities Project, 2007.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Why I Don’t Support the Troops
“Support the Troops” – the signs are ubiquitous, from bumper stickers to store windows to demonstrations both for and against the war. So much lip service is paid to the phrase you’d think America would have run out of Chap Stick by now. Anti-war groups and the politicians that agree with them tried to usurp the sentiment by insisting, “We support the troops” and then tagging on “Bring them home.” I’ve taken the same position in my anti-war activism, and held the signs proclaiming that support meant getting them out of harm’s way as quickly as possible, but I’ve always felt twinges of hypocrisy in doing so.
It became clear to me why the anti-war proclamation of support for the military was an untenable and in my estimation contradictory position after hearing something Utah Phillips said. Phillips, long-time peace activist and workers’ rights advocate through his songs and stories performed over the decades across the country, died recently, and the radio program I heard was a recounting of his life as an activist and performer. He lived his life in the tradition of a Woody Guthrie, Paul Robeson, or Pete Seeger, using music and the power of performance to impart the true history – a people’s history – of the great social movements for justice and civil rights. They exposed the myths and told the truth about how governments create wars and then lie and manipulate the populace to support and go along with it. They showed us through song and story how this has been going on almost from the inception of our nation to present time, and down through the ages in other lands across the globe. It’s an old story, maybe the oldest in the tales of men and war.
What does “support” mean?
What Utah spoke about and pointed out in that replaying of his words was this: If we who oppose the war, in this case the war in Iraq, say that we “support the troops” (regardless of the tag line) then we’re also taking on responsibility for their actions. If we support the troops then we support the sending of armies to invade other countries that have not attacked us because that’s what these troops have been sent to do. If we make claim to supporting the troops then we are giving our tacit approval and acceptance for the killing of other people in a foreign nation. If we support the troops, we are agreeing with the principle that it’s all right to invade, kill, maim, and imprison other people and destroy their country’s infrastructure, economy and culture because some head of state or government administration has told us that it’s necessary. By pledging our support I believe we inadvertently legitimize the war.
Atrocities during wars are not abnormal, aberrational or occasional acts – they’re part and parcel of the whole bloody enterprise. If we support the troops are we willing to see that we have a responsibility when it comes to what they’ve done? It’s exceedingly difficult for those of us who have been opposed to the war from the start, and have marched, demonstrated and spoken out against it to see that we have any connection to what’s been done. After all we who opposed it, from the weeks of the devastation from the air force bombing to missiles from navy ships to the invasion and its aftermath, decried the indiscriminate murder and mayhem perpetrated by our military forces. Are the military personnel from the various branches of the armed forces, be they air force, navy or ground units not also included as the “troops”? Whether flying planes or launching missiles or engaging in combat on the ground these members of the U.S. military are our troops. Whether our military forces are dropping bombs from 50,000 feet, launching missiles from many miles away or shooting people on the ground the result is the same; people, often innocent ones, are being killed.
About the troops
As everyone knows our military is a volunteer force. Some argue it’s really a poor person’s draft providing wages, job training, education and opportunities to individuals from lower income families who have fewer choices after high school. However there are credible published data that refute that assumption. Were they lied to and duped by the Bush Administration into believing the war in Iraq was necessary, just as was the Congress and millions of Americans? Surely. Even if some of them saw through the lies and deception, as soldiers they had no choice but to go and fight or face imprisonment or self imposed exile. A soldier can always choose conscientious objection and face the very difficult consequences if he or she does not believe in the righteousness of the cause. For a soldier it’s no small matter to choose non-compliance, and pay the penalties such an option will extract. Very few choose that hard path, but the only alternative is to agree to harm others for a cause that’s not just. These are the conditions that have been placed on some in our armed forces that have come to understand the illegality, non-necessity and fundamental immorality of the war and occupation in Iraq.
But this is not the case for many if not most of the soldiers in our volunteer forces in Iraq. Many have gone without questioning the justification of the war, see it as their duty, legally, morally and patriotically, and to obey orders and do what they are told. Soldiers have only one purpose when they go to war, and that’s to kill the “enemy.” Occupying captured territory is a different matter, but invading armies don’t go in to win hearts and minds – they go in to blow people away. Killing the enemy is their job; it’s what they’re trained and paid to do. To see it differently is delusional. Occupying armies keep the lid on volatile situations and a highly agitated and disgruntled populace, by any means necessary, as they deem it. We know all too well what this has meant in the last five years.
We know that to date over four thousand U.S. servicemen and women have been killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, tens of thousands have been grievously wounded, and estimates of Iraqi civilians killed range from hundreds of thousands to over a million. Whatever the exact figures are regarding innocent civilians killed or maimed there’s no question that the Bush Administration, many members of Congress, and the U.S. military are responsible, directly and indirectly, for death on a massive scale in Iraq, a country that did not attack us.
I do not oppose all wars. There are times when war is necessary. But it is abundantly clear that the war in Iraq was no such case. And it is our military personnel that have carried out this war, albeit fomented by the President and his administration. I certainly want the troops in all the military branches in Iraq out of harm’s way and brought safely home as quickly and at the same time as responsibly – for the safeguarding of the Iraqi people – as possible. But I can no longer say I support the troops any more than I can say I support the war or those who are responsible for it.
It became clear to me why the anti-war proclamation of support for the military was an untenable and in my estimation contradictory position after hearing something Utah Phillips said. Phillips, long-time peace activist and workers’ rights advocate through his songs and stories performed over the decades across the country, died recently, and the radio program I heard was a recounting of his life as an activist and performer. He lived his life in the tradition of a Woody Guthrie, Paul Robeson, or Pete Seeger, using music and the power of performance to impart the true history – a people’s history – of the great social movements for justice and civil rights. They exposed the myths and told the truth about how governments create wars and then lie and manipulate the populace to support and go along with it. They showed us through song and story how this has been going on almost from the inception of our nation to present time, and down through the ages in other lands across the globe. It’s an old story, maybe the oldest in the tales of men and war.
What does “support” mean?
What Utah spoke about and pointed out in that replaying of his words was this: If we who oppose the war, in this case the war in Iraq, say that we “support the troops” (regardless of the tag line) then we’re also taking on responsibility for their actions. If we support the troops then we support the sending of armies to invade other countries that have not attacked us because that’s what these troops have been sent to do. If we make claim to supporting the troops then we are giving our tacit approval and acceptance for the killing of other people in a foreign nation. If we support the troops, we are agreeing with the principle that it’s all right to invade, kill, maim, and imprison other people and destroy their country’s infrastructure, economy and culture because some head of state or government administration has told us that it’s necessary. By pledging our support I believe we inadvertently legitimize the war.
Atrocities during wars are not abnormal, aberrational or occasional acts – they’re part and parcel of the whole bloody enterprise. If we support the troops are we willing to see that we have a responsibility when it comes to what they’ve done? It’s exceedingly difficult for those of us who have been opposed to the war from the start, and have marched, demonstrated and spoken out against it to see that we have any connection to what’s been done. After all we who opposed it, from the weeks of the devastation from the air force bombing to missiles from navy ships to the invasion and its aftermath, decried the indiscriminate murder and mayhem perpetrated by our military forces. Are the military personnel from the various branches of the armed forces, be they air force, navy or ground units not also included as the “troops”? Whether flying planes or launching missiles or engaging in combat on the ground these members of the U.S. military are our troops. Whether our military forces are dropping bombs from 50,000 feet, launching missiles from many miles away or shooting people on the ground the result is the same; people, often innocent ones, are being killed.
About the troops
As everyone knows our military is a volunteer force. Some argue it’s really a poor person’s draft providing wages, job training, education and opportunities to individuals from lower income families who have fewer choices after high school. However there are credible published data that refute that assumption. Were they lied to and duped by the Bush Administration into believing the war in Iraq was necessary, just as was the Congress and millions of Americans? Surely. Even if some of them saw through the lies and deception, as soldiers they had no choice but to go and fight or face imprisonment or self imposed exile. A soldier can always choose conscientious objection and face the very difficult consequences if he or she does not believe in the righteousness of the cause. For a soldier it’s no small matter to choose non-compliance, and pay the penalties such an option will extract. Very few choose that hard path, but the only alternative is to agree to harm others for a cause that’s not just. These are the conditions that have been placed on some in our armed forces that have come to understand the illegality, non-necessity and fundamental immorality of the war and occupation in Iraq.
But this is not the case for many if not most of the soldiers in our volunteer forces in Iraq. Many have gone without questioning the justification of the war, see it as their duty, legally, morally and patriotically, and to obey orders and do what they are told. Soldiers have only one purpose when they go to war, and that’s to kill the “enemy.” Occupying captured territory is a different matter, but invading armies don’t go in to win hearts and minds – they go in to blow people away. Killing the enemy is their job; it’s what they’re trained and paid to do. To see it differently is delusional. Occupying armies keep the lid on volatile situations and a highly agitated and disgruntled populace, by any means necessary, as they deem it. We know all too well what this has meant in the last five years.
We know that to date over four thousand U.S. servicemen and women have been killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, tens of thousands have been grievously wounded, and estimates of Iraqi civilians killed range from hundreds of thousands to over a million. Whatever the exact figures are regarding innocent civilians killed or maimed there’s no question that the Bush Administration, many members of Congress, and the U.S. military are responsible, directly and indirectly, for death on a massive scale in Iraq, a country that did not attack us.
I do not oppose all wars. There are times when war is necessary. But it is abundantly clear that the war in Iraq was no such case. And it is our military personnel that have carried out this war, albeit fomented by the President and his administration. I certainly want the troops in all the military branches in Iraq out of harm’s way and brought safely home as quickly and at the same time as responsibly – for the safeguarding of the Iraqi people – as possible. But I can no longer say I support the troops any more than I can say I support the war or those who are responsible for it.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Where is the Outrage?
The Santa Rosa Press Democrat "covered" the Congressional impeachment hearing of July 25 with a short and snotty Associated Press reprint on page 8 of its paper the following day. Featured articles about trans fat, achieving one's dreams, erectile supplements, Schwarzenegger greeting Olympic athletes, and the endless rehash of Obama in Europe took precedence.
I wrote to the paper's publisher, Bruce Kyse, and the editorial director, Paul Gullixson, asking them if they consider this to be responsible reporting? I asked, "Do you or your parent company feel any responsibility for the mess we're in today - the illegal, unnecessary and immoral war/occupation in Iraq responsible for the deaths of over four thousand U.S. service men and women, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, along with a price tag that may amount to a trillion dollars or more, the acceptance of torture, the dissolution of the Fourth Amendment and admitted illegal spying on Americans, the disastrous state of the economy, and on and on? Is there any sense on your part that you have participated in this miserable state of affairs by your dereliction of duty in covering and reporting the news?" I concluded with, "You have no business writing editorials that take others to task for their actions or lack of principles when you bury real news stories about significant issues and print a lot of crap in its place."
There's no question in my mind that this kind of "reporting" by the NY Times and other mainstream media is directly attributable to the ignorance, apathy, and sheep-like mentality that defines our culture. It's no wonder people like Bush & Cheney and their ilk have been able to desecrate our Constitution, murder (yes, murder) hundreds of thousands, and to a large extent destroy the nation's economy in their wake, and GET AWAY WITH IT.
Where the hell is the outrage?
Pacifica Radio's KPFA covered the hearings from gavel to gavel, as usual. I didn't hear the whole of the coverage, but some of what I heard was absolutely brilliant testimony. KPFA archived their full coverage of the hearing, which can be streamed on KPFA's Web site.
Please see reprint of The Nation's John Nichols article on the hearing below.
.....
Impeachment Hearings Are the Appropriate and Necessary Next Step
Friday 25 July 2008
by: John Nichols, The Nation
As the House Judiciary Committee took up the question of how best to address what its chairman described as "the Imperial Presidency of George W. Bush," it was the ranking Republican in the room, Iowa Congressman Steve King, who observed that, "We are here having impeachment hearings before the Judiciary Committee.
"These are impeachment hearings before the United States Congress," King continued. "I never imagined I would ever be sitting on this side when something like this happened."
King was not happy about the circumstance.
A resolute defender of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, the congressman was objecting to the very mention of the "I" word.
As it happened, impeachment was mentioned dozens of times during the hearing, often in significant detail and frequently as a necessary response to lawless actions of the president and vice president.
King's statement addressed the uncertain character of Friday morning's attempt by the relevant committee of the chamber empowered by the founders to impose accountability on presidents and vice presidents to tackle what Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers, D-Michigan, referred to as "numerous credible allegations of serious misconduct by officials in the Bush Administration."
Conyers explained that "to the regret of many, this is not an impeachment hearing." For that to happen, Conyers argued, the committee would need clearer authorization from the full House.
But members of the committee, the Democrats and the Republicans, as well as a bipartisan panel of House members and another panel of former House members, and academics and activists, repeatedly put the impeachment on the table of a chamber where the speaker had once denied it a place.
Congressman Maurice Hinchey, D-New York, told the committee that President Bush and Vice President Cheney had committed acts that make theirs "the most impeachable administration in the history of our country."
Texas Democrat Sheila Jackson-Lee, held up a copy of the Constitution and announced, "There is a real question of whether this Constitution is being protected."
Republican members of the committee griped. Indiana Congressman Mike Pence complained that the entire session - with its discussion not just of impeachment but of legislative initiatives to address executive secrecy and overreach - caused him to worry about "the criminalization of American politics."
Addressing his remarks to Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich, the author of articles of impeachment against President Bush and Vice President Cheney that provoked Friday's hearing, Pence said, "I just believe the gentleman from Ohio is wrong."
Kucinich, who is not a member of the Judiciary Committee, stood his ground, arguing when he addressed the committee that a failure to impeach would not merely let Bush off the hook but signal to future presidents that they, too, may reject the rule of law and refuse to cooperate with Congress.
Several members of the committee were, if anything, more passionate in their remarks than Kucinich.
Georgia Democrat Hank Johnson told his colleagues that if they failed to act and President Bush authorized an illegal attack on Iran, they might look back on their dismissal on the neglect of their duty to check and balance an errant executive as a deadly mistake.
It was that sense of urgency that motivated committee member Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, to say explain that, "What this Congress does, or chooses not to do in furthering the investigation of the serious allegations against this administration - and if just cause is found, to hold them accountable - will impact the conduct of future presidents, perhaps for generations."
"Mr. Chairman," Baldwin continued, "there are those who would say that holding this hearing - examining whether or not the president and vice president broke the law - is frivolous. I not only reject this, I believe there is no task more important for this Congress than to seriously consider whether our nation's leaders have violated their oath of office. The American public expects no less. It is, after all, their Constitution. No president or congress has the authority to override that document, whereby ëWe the People' conferred upon the branches of government limited and defined power, and provided for meaningful checks and balances."
There can be no question at this late date in the Bush presidency that the issue of whether the American system will be characterized by "meaningful checks and balances" is at stake - and that goes to the heart of the matter of why Friday's hearing ought not be the end of a process but a beginning.
Even after George Bush and Dick Cheney have left the White House, the definition of the presidency that they have crafted will remain.
"On January 20, 2009, the next president and vice president of the United States will stand before the American people and take an oath of office, swearing to ëÖ preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.' This commitment and obligation is so fundamental to our democracy that our nation's founders prescribed that oath in our Constitution. They also provided for the removal of the president and vice president for, among other things, ëhigh crimes and misdemeanors,'" Baldwin explained to the committee. "Presidents and vice presidents do not take that oath in a vacuum. They are informed by the actions or inactions of past presidents and congresses, who establish precedents for the future."
It is in the power of the Congress to begin setting the precedent to which Baldwin addressed herself. That power was defined by the framers of the Constitution, as were the practices and procedures to be used in executing it.
With that in mind, Baldwin correctly outlined the next steps for a committee and a Congress that has begun to place not just the matter of impeachment but the broader question of the imperial presidency on the table but that certainly has not completed the process"
(The) American people have been forced to sit by while credible allegations of abuse of power mount:
We have seen this Administration fabricate the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and allege, despite all evidence to the contrary, a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. These lies dragged our country into a preemptive and unjustified war that has taken the lives of more than 4,000 U.S. troops, injured 30,000 more, and will cost our nation more than a trillion dollars.
We watched as this Administration again undermined national security by manipulating and exaggerating evidence of Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities and openly threatened aggression against Iran, despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or capability of attacking the U.S.
We have looked on in horror as the Administration suspended habeas corpus by claiming the power to declare any person an "enemy combatant" - ignoring the Geneva Convention protections that the U.S. helped create.
We have seen torture and rendition of prisoners in violation of international law and stated American policy and values, and destruction of the videotaped evidence of such torture, under the tenure of this Administration.
We have seen this Administration spy on Americans without a court order or oversight in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
We watched as U.S. Attorneys pursued politically-motivated prosecutions in violation of the law and perhaps at the direction of this White House.
We watched as Administration officials outed Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert agent of the CIA and then intentionally obstructed justice by disseminating false information through the White House press office.
As we know, the framers of our Constitution called for impeachment only in the case of high crimes and misdemeanors. The standard is purposely set high because we should not impeach for personal or political gain - only to uphold and safeguard our democracy. Sadly, in my judgment, at least two high-ranking administration officials have met that standard. Although the call to impeach is one I take neither easily nor lightly, I now firmly believe that impeachment hearings are the appropriate and necessary next step.
I wrote to the paper's publisher, Bruce Kyse, and the editorial director, Paul Gullixson, asking them if they consider this to be responsible reporting? I asked, "Do you or your parent company feel any responsibility for the mess we're in today - the illegal, unnecessary and immoral war/occupation in Iraq responsible for the deaths of over four thousand U.S. service men and women, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, along with a price tag that may amount to a trillion dollars or more, the acceptance of torture, the dissolution of the Fourth Amendment and admitted illegal spying on Americans, the disastrous state of the economy, and on and on? Is there any sense on your part that you have participated in this miserable state of affairs by your dereliction of duty in covering and reporting the news?" I concluded with, "You have no business writing editorials that take others to task for their actions or lack of principles when you bury real news stories about significant issues and print a lot of crap in its place."
There's no question in my mind that this kind of "reporting" by the NY Times and other mainstream media is directly attributable to the ignorance, apathy, and sheep-like mentality that defines our culture. It's no wonder people like Bush & Cheney and their ilk have been able to desecrate our Constitution, murder (yes, murder) hundreds of thousands, and to a large extent destroy the nation's economy in their wake, and GET AWAY WITH IT.
Where the hell is the outrage?
Pacifica Radio's KPFA covered the hearings from gavel to gavel, as usual. I didn't hear the whole of the coverage, but some of what I heard was absolutely brilliant testimony. KPFA archived their full coverage of the hearing, which can be streamed on KPFA's Web site.
Please see reprint of The Nation's John Nichols article on the hearing below.
.....
Impeachment Hearings Are the Appropriate and Necessary Next Step
Friday 25 July 2008
by: John Nichols, The Nation
As the House Judiciary Committee took up the question of how best to address what its chairman described as "the Imperial Presidency of George W. Bush," it was the ranking Republican in the room, Iowa Congressman Steve King, who observed that, "We are here having impeachment hearings before the Judiciary Committee.
"These are impeachment hearings before the United States Congress," King continued. "I never imagined I would ever be sitting on this side when something like this happened."
King was not happy about the circumstance.
A resolute defender of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, the congressman was objecting to the very mention of the "I" word.
As it happened, impeachment was mentioned dozens of times during the hearing, often in significant detail and frequently as a necessary response to lawless actions of the president and vice president.
King's statement addressed the uncertain character of Friday morning's attempt by the relevant committee of the chamber empowered by the founders to impose accountability on presidents and vice presidents to tackle what Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers, D-Michigan, referred to as "numerous credible allegations of serious misconduct by officials in the Bush Administration."
Conyers explained that "to the regret of many, this is not an impeachment hearing." For that to happen, Conyers argued, the committee would need clearer authorization from the full House.
But members of the committee, the Democrats and the Republicans, as well as a bipartisan panel of House members and another panel of former House members, and academics and activists, repeatedly put the impeachment on the table of a chamber where the speaker had once denied it a place.
Congressman Maurice Hinchey, D-New York, told the committee that President Bush and Vice President Cheney had committed acts that make theirs "the most impeachable administration in the history of our country."
Texas Democrat Sheila Jackson-Lee, held up a copy of the Constitution and announced, "There is a real question of whether this Constitution is being protected."
Republican members of the committee griped. Indiana Congressman Mike Pence complained that the entire session - with its discussion not just of impeachment but of legislative initiatives to address executive secrecy and overreach - caused him to worry about "the criminalization of American politics."
Addressing his remarks to Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich, the author of articles of impeachment against President Bush and Vice President Cheney that provoked Friday's hearing, Pence said, "I just believe the gentleman from Ohio is wrong."
Kucinich, who is not a member of the Judiciary Committee, stood his ground, arguing when he addressed the committee that a failure to impeach would not merely let Bush off the hook but signal to future presidents that they, too, may reject the rule of law and refuse to cooperate with Congress.
Several members of the committee were, if anything, more passionate in their remarks than Kucinich.
Georgia Democrat Hank Johnson told his colleagues that if they failed to act and President Bush authorized an illegal attack on Iran, they might look back on their dismissal on the neglect of their duty to check and balance an errant executive as a deadly mistake.
It was that sense of urgency that motivated committee member Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, to say explain that, "What this Congress does, or chooses not to do in furthering the investigation of the serious allegations against this administration - and if just cause is found, to hold them accountable - will impact the conduct of future presidents, perhaps for generations."
"Mr. Chairman," Baldwin continued, "there are those who would say that holding this hearing - examining whether or not the president and vice president broke the law - is frivolous. I not only reject this, I believe there is no task more important for this Congress than to seriously consider whether our nation's leaders have violated their oath of office. The American public expects no less. It is, after all, their Constitution. No president or congress has the authority to override that document, whereby ëWe the People' conferred upon the branches of government limited and defined power, and provided for meaningful checks and balances."
There can be no question at this late date in the Bush presidency that the issue of whether the American system will be characterized by "meaningful checks and balances" is at stake - and that goes to the heart of the matter of why Friday's hearing ought not be the end of a process but a beginning.
Even after George Bush and Dick Cheney have left the White House, the definition of the presidency that they have crafted will remain.
"On January 20, 2009, the next president and vice president of the United States will stand before the American people and take an oath of office, swearing to ëÖ preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.' This commitment and obligation is so fundamental to our democracy that our nation's founders prescribed that oath in our Constitution. They also provided for the removal of the president and vice president for, among other things, ëhigh crimes and misdemeanors,'" Baldwin explained to the committee. "Presidents and vice presidents do not take that oath in a vacuum. They are informed by the actions or inactions of past presidents and congresses, who establish precedents for the future."
It is in the power of the Congress to begin setting the precedent to which Baldwin addressed herself. That power was defined by the framers of the Constitution, as were the practices and procedures to be used in executing it.
With that in mind, Baldwin correctly outlined the next steps for a committee and a Congress that has begun to place not just the matter of impeachment but the broader question of the imperial presidency on the table but that certainly has not completed the process"
(The) American people have been forced to sit by while credible allegations of abuse of power mount:
We have seen this Administration fabricate the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and allege, despite all evidence to the contrary, a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. These lies dragged our country into a preemptive and unjustified war that has taken the lives of more than 4,000 U.S. troops, injured 30,000 more, and will cost our nation more than a trillion dollars.
We watched as this Administration again undermined national security by manipulating and exaggerating evidence of Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities and openly threatened aggression against Iran, despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or capability of attacking the U.S.
We have looked on in horror as the Administration suspended habeas corpus by claiming the power to declare any person an "enemy combatant" - ignoring the Geneva Convention protections that the U.S. helped create.
We have seen torture and rendition of prisoners in violation of international law and stated American policy and values, and destruction of the videotaped evidence of such torture, under the tenure of this Administration.
We have seen this Administration spy on Americans without a court order or oversight in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
We watched as U.S. Attorneys pursued politically-motivated prosecutions in violation of the law and perhaps at the direction of this White House.
We watched as Administration officials outed Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert agent of the CIA and then intentionally obstructed justice by disseminating false information through the White House press office.
As we know, the framers of our Constitution called for impeachment only in the case of high crimes and misdemeanors. The standard is purposely set high because we should not impeach for personal or political gain - only to uphold and safeguard our democracy. Sadly, in my judgment, at least two high-ranking administration officials have met that standard. Although the call to impeach is one I take neither easily nor lightly, I now firmly believe that impeachment hearings are the appropriate and necessary next step.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Can the Damage Be Undone?
Under the Bush administration and under the guise of national security, American’s 4th Amendment Constitutional right not to be spied upon without probable cause and the issuing of a judicial warrant for that purpose has been eroded, and in some cases effectively discarded.
Beginning with the jingoistically named USA Patriot Act in October of 2001, American’s library records, book and periodical purchases, and medical records were deemed subject to secret scrutiny by the government. With a Kafkaesque or Orwellian twist, depending on your brand of totalitarian state paranoia, the subject of investigation was not to be informed by those agencies whose records were to be explored by pain of fine and/or incarceration. A nice touch in coercion by the same band of “patriots” that lobbied for closed, extra-legal military tribunals for prisoners in Guantanamo, and who also conducted kidnappings for torture AKA extraordinary renditions. Fortunately the Supreme Court did not bend to the Chief Executive’s Spanish Inquisitional type of legal justice, though for all we know the abductions for torture may still be going on.
Next came the shocking revelation and years-late admission that American’s phone calls and emails had been illegally tapped and spied on in violation of FISA, which requires government agencies to get judicial warrants for such surveillance activities. In collecting this illicit data the Bush administration was aided and abetted by some of the major telecom companies, AT&T and Verizon being among them. To what extent this has been done – the number of Americans spied on, and the type and amount of data procured – is still not known, and probably never will be what with the recent passage of a revised FISA bill that lets the telecoms, and by extension Bush & Company off the legal hook.
And let us not forget that medieval master stroke to do away with habeas corpus for those seized as suspected terrorists, which has been the moral cornerstone of our judicial system, and a bedrock safeguard for the rights of mankind for a thousand years – the right to be charged with an offense in a court of law in an expedient manner. Once again the Supreme Court narrowly voted against this unprecedented legal dismemberment, passing it off to Congress to deal with in the final analysis.
“The U.S. doesn’t torture,” lied Mr. bush having all the while constructed a “legal” framework for the systematic torturing and horrendous abuse of subjects in prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo for the erstwhile purpose of gathering critical information. Apparently some high-ranking officials in the Pentagon, and former Secretary of State Powell thought this (again) unprecedented and dangerously libel-to-backfire dismantling of the Geneva Conventions on the handling of prisoners a terrible idea. If it’s okay for America to torture and abuse prisoners of war then what’s to stop American prisoners from the same fate in the hands of an enemy, huh Mr. Bush?
So the question is: Can these egregious Constitutional breakdowns, the underpinnings of our legal system, along with a dissolution of moral and ethical bounds in devising systems of torture be changed back, reformed or undone? Can we go back as a nation, and as the individuals that comprise that nation, to what used to be; before those that have perpetrated this marked veering off course? Can we undo what’s been done?
I’d answer, yes and no.
Laws can be reinstated, or new ones written to correct a course. If there is the political will to do so. This remains to be seen when a new administration comes to power. My guess –perhaps hope- is that a Democratic president will encourage changes of the provisions of the Patriot Act that all but do away with the Fourth Amendment. I also think that this same Democratic Chief Executive will encourage a revising of the compromised FISA to temper some of its overreach and better safeguard civil liberties. However I don’t think the newly granted immunity can be overturned, and more’s the pity.
I think any program to justify the use of torture, and the twisted legal logic that underwrote it, will be done away with and denounced. The people must make it clear to their leaders what they will accept and what they will not. If we as a nation haven’t lost all our moral footing, and are still a people of conscience with a strong sense of justice, which I believe we are, then we will make sure our leaders correct the disastrous course the Bush administration has taken.
But there’s a nagging doubt that because the pendulum of cultural shifts has swung so far to the right, the center is no longer where we once were, and our cultural consciousness has shifted with it. For example: The concept of a pre-emptive war being justifiable. Have we as a nation become more acceptant of that idea? And what about the question of torture: Is it ever acceptable and under what circumstances? How much spying can or should we do on our citizens in the name of national security?
The fact that we’re even entertaining some of these ideas indicates to me that the center has shifted from where it was. The center of our sense of what is right or wrong, just or moral, has been, I think, brought to a different place; a less tolerant, more suspicious and more fearful place. Because we have moved so far afield from what we once held to be the norm of behavior, and because the actions of our leaders have degraded us in the eyes of many other nations, we can’t just erase these deeds by the stroke of a pen and go on as if all is well again. It’s too late for that.
Of course we must get our legal footing back to where it was before being usurped by a small band of ideological miscreants. But can we get our moral sense back? It’s a very disturbing question, but I think it’s one we (all) need to wrestle with, and then come up with a way of restoring our moral compass. I think there are ways of doing that – first and foremost being Congressional hearings examining criminal or illicit acts. In addition we could embark on national projects that benefit our society as a whole, beginning with an affordable universal health care system. Government sponsored public works projects could go a long way toward providing jobs for people, repairing the nation’s infrastructure and at the same time shoring up the failing economy. We need to reinstate and enforce regulations that oversee commerce and trade, and that protect the public’s interest, not just wall street and investors. These are just some of the things that can restore our civic sense of responsibility and participation in a democracy sullied and perverted by the current ruling claque.
Perhaps some version of a truth and reconciliation process will be needed to regain our moral footing. It is important that we know the degree to which we’ve been lied to and misled. It’s essential that we become aware of what’s been done in our name to those we’ve imprisoned and stripped of all legal rights. It’s imperative that we be told the extent of the clandestine warrantless surveillance that has been ongoing for the last seven years, and not let it be sweep under the rug by enacting a “new” FISA and saying the job is done.
If we do not proceed with Congressional hearings and investigations to discover the extent of the damage done, and hold legally accountable those who transgressed and are responsible for these actions then the body politic cannot heal and will remain infected. If we try to dismiss or ignore the illicit actions of those in government responsible for taking the nation on an illegal and immoral direction, for whatever reasons, political or otherwise, then the damage to our legal system, and the degradation of our moral code of behavior and standards of decency will not be undone. There are some small signs of hope on the horizon, but we are still far from shore.
Beginning with the jingoistically named USA Patriot Act in October of 2001, American’s library records, book and periodical purchases, and medical records were deemed subject to secret scrutiny by the government. With a Kafkaesque or Orwellian twist, depending on your brand of totalitarian state paranoia, the subject of investigation was not to be informed by those agencies whose records were to be explored by pain of fine and/or incarceration. A nice touch in coercion by the same band of “patriots” that lobbied for closed, extra-legal military tribunals for prisoners in Guantanamo, and who also conducted kidnappings for torture AKA extraordinary renditions. Fortunately the Supreme Court did not bend to the Chief Executive’s Spanish Inquisitional type of legal justice, though for all we know the abductions for torture may still be going on.
Next came the shocking revelation and years-late admission that American’s phone calls and emails had been illegally tapped and spied on in violation of FISA, which requires government agencies to get judicial warrants for such surveillance activities. In collecting this illicit data the Bush administration was aided and abetted by some of the major telecom companies, AT&T and Verizon being among them. To what extent this has been done – the number of Americans spied on, and the type and amount of data procured – is still not known, and probably never will be what with the recent passage of a revised FISA bill that lets the telecoms, and by extension Bush & Company off the legal hook.
And let us not forget that medieval master stroke to do away with habeas corpus for those seized as suspected terrorists, which has been the moral cornerstone of our judicial system, and a bedrock safeguard for the rights of mankind for a thousand years – the right to be charged with an offense in a court of law in an expedient manner. Once again the Supreme Court narrowly voted against this unprecedented legal dismemberment, passing it off to Congress to deal with in the final analysis.
“The U.S. doesn’t torture,” lied Mr. bush having all the while constructed a “legal” framework for the systematic torturing and horrendous abuse of subjects in prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo for the erstwhile purpose of gathering critical information. Apparently some high-ranking officials in the Pentagon, and former Secretary of State Powell thought this (again) unprecedented and dangerously libel-to-backfire dismantling of the Geneva Conventions on the handling of prisoners a terrible idea. If it’s okay for America to torture and abuse prisoners of war then what’s to stop American prisoners from the same fate in the hands of an enemy, huh Mr. Bush?
So the question is: Can these egregious Constitutional breakdowns, the underpinnings of our legal system, along with a dissolution of moral and ethical bounds in devising systems of torture be changed back, reformed or undone? Can we go back as a nation, and as the individuals that comprise that nation, to what used to be; before those that have perpetrated this marked veering off course? Can we undo what’s been done?
I’d answer, yes and no.
Laws can be reinstated, or new ones written to correct a course. If there is the political will to do so. This remains to be seen when a new administration comes to power. My guess –perhaps hope- is that a Democratic president will encourage changes of the provisions of the Patriot Act that all but do away with the Fourth Amendment. I also think that this same Democratic Chief Executive will encourage a revising of the compromised FISA to temper some of its overreach and better safeguard civil liberties. However I don’t think the newly granted immunity can be overturned, and more’s the pity.
I think any program to justify the use of torture, and the twisted legal logic that underwrote it, will be done away with and denounced. The people must make it clear to their leaders what they will accept and what they will not. If we as a nation haven’t lost all our moral footing, and are still a people of conscience with a strong sense of justice, which I believe we are, then we will make sure our leaders correct the disastrous course the Bush administration has taken.
But there’s a nagging doubt that because the pendulum of cultural shifts has swung so far to the right, the center is no longer where we once were, and our cultural consciousness has shifted with it. For example: The concept of a pre-emptive war being justifiable. Have we as a nation become more acceptant of that idea? And what about the question of torture: Is it ever acceptable and under what circumstances? How much spying can or should we do on our citizens in the name of national security?
The fact that we’re even entertaining some of these ideas indicates to me that the center has shifted from where it was. The center of our sense of what is right or wrong, just or moral, has been, I think, brought to a different place; a less tolerant, more suspicious and more fearful place. Because we have moved so far afield from what we once held to be the norm of behavior, and because the actions of our leaders have degraded us in the eyes of many other nations, we can’t just erase these deeds by the stroke of a pen and go on as if all is well again. It’s too late for that.
Of course we must get our legal footing back to where it was before being usurped by a small band of ideological miscreants. But can we get our moral sense back? It’s a very disturbing question, but I think it’s one we (all) need to wrestle with, and then come up with a way of restoring our moral compass. I think there are ways of doing that – first and foremost being Congressional hearings examining criminal or illicit acts. In addition we could embark on national projects that benefit our society as a whole, beginning with an affordable universal health care system. Government sponsored public works projects could go a long way toward providing jobs for people, repairing the nation’s infrastructure and at the same time shoring up the failing economy. We need to reinstate and enforce regulations that oversee commerce and trade, and that protect the public’s interest, not just wall street and investors. These are just some of the things that can restore our civic sense of responsibility and participation in a democracy sullied and perverted by the current ruling claque.
Perhaps some version of a truth and reconciliation process will be needed to regain our moral footing. It is important that we know the degree to which we’ve been lied to and misled. It’s essential that we become aware of what’s been done in our name to those we’ve imprisoned and stripped of all legal rights. It’s imperative that we be told the extent of the clandestine warrantless surveillance that has been ongoing for the last seven years, and not let it be sweep under the rug by enacting a “new” FISA and saying the job is done.
If we do not proceed with Congressional hearings and investigations to discover the extent of the damage done, and hold legally accountable those who transgressed and are responsible for these actions then the body politic cannot heal and will remain infected. If we try to dismiss or ignore the illicit actions of those in government responsible for taking the nation on an illegal and immoral direction, for whatever reasons, political or otherwise, then the damage to our legal system, and the degradation of our moral code of behavior and standards of decency will not be undone. There are some small signs of hope on the horizon, but we are still far from shore.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
He Just Doesn't Get It
If all that is required of Sonoma City Council members is that they deal with matters that are confined, literally and figuratively, to 2 x 2.5 square miles then what need is there for such persons?
Most of the decisions made by our council regard land use and property zoning, or budgetary priorities. Many of the growth and development decisions, as well as aesthetic configurations (building size, architecture, business signs, etc.) are made by the Planning Commission anyway. Yes, the Planning Commission members are chosen by the City Council, and occasionally the council settles some planning disputes, but the former function is an opening for bias, and the latter is arbitrary. We could as easily elect a Planning Commission. Establishing a budget for the city has little to do with creating revenue, this is more or less dependent on outside forces and the vicissitudes of economic markets, and the expenditure of funds could be managed by any competent accountant. The Chamber of Commerce concentrates on promoting Sonoma businesses, and the Sonoma Visitors Bureau promotes our town as an attractive destination for the all important tourist trade.
There are two water use agencies, the City of Sonoma Water Department and the Valley of the Moon Water District that monitor and regulate water and waste-water, and many of those regulations are dictated by the county, state agencies or regional boards.
The everyday functioning of the city is done by professionals in their fields – city management, Planning Direction, building and maintenance operatives – that are far more experienced and knowledgeable than most of our citizen politicians. As to providing for public safety we have a Police Department and a Fire Department. And there’s a school board and a hospital board that concerns itself with those matters.
So this begs the question: What are the real need, the necessity for and the functioning of a Sonoma City Council? What makes a group of amateurs more equipped to deal with and make decisions about the aforementioned matters?
Councilman Sebastiani says it’s not the council’s business to consider or engage in anything other than those areas I’ve enumerated. Possibly I’ve left out some vital function only a council member might be more qualified to handle than a paid, experienced professional. Perhaps Mr. Sebastiani will enlighten us in this regard.
Given the narrow parameters, physically and politically as regards the functions of a city council as defined by Mr. Sebastiani, I fail to see what earthly purpose a city council member serves when there are much more qualified professionals to do the job. Is he equipped to make better business decisions for the city? He’s 27 years old, and his only experience is working in a family owned business. Has he started and run his own business successfully?
Perhaps he has some expertise about housing – construction, costs, renovation, green building, or the housing market, etc. Perhaps he knows about road maintenance. But then we already have competent and experienced city departments that deal with these matters. And if public safety, health care and education are handled by other agencies, and are not within the city’s jurisdiction or even sphere of interest by Mr. Sebastiani’s reckoning – Sonoma Police are ultimately answerable to the County Sheriff’s Department – then exactly what is it he’s needed for? Help me out here, August; give me your raison d’etre.
My point here, granted proffered in a facetious way, is this. We elect a city council to take leadership roles when it comes to making decisions about matters of concern that will have effects on and implications for most if not all of our residents. Again, city managers and their professional staff are equipped to handle most of the city’s business and legal matters. Can this be corrupted and self-serving? You bet, and a function of city councils is to be a watchdog and see that doesn’t happen. That requires knowing a good deal about city management. Is this Mr. Sebastiani’s area of expertise? What prior experience has given him this education? He didn’t serve on any city commissions or boards, ad hoc committees or even service organizations, before jumping on to the city council.
The only area of leadership, if one could call it that, which Mr. Sebastiani has leapt into was challenging our nation’s Constitutional First Amendment by attempting to breach the wall of separation between church and state in having religious symbols and displays on the public square. That’s the only instance of “leadership” that I’ve seen him display as he exhorted his followers to push on deeper into the waters of constitutional law. Was this a vital matter of concern for most Sonoma residents? Hardly. Mr. Sebastiani says he’s a councilman, not a “lobbyist” for certain concerns or interests, but he lobbied his little brains out for this issue – and lost to boot. Mr. Sebastiani is rather selective when it comes to seeing some issues as within or outside his so-called jurisdiction.
City councils, others, and ours take on all kinds of issues – national, state, regional or local, when it’s determined that the criteria being judged will effect or impact its citizenry. This is where leadership comes in. It is incumbent upon council members to study and to know the ramifications of these matters so that they can try to make informed and intelligent decisions. Abstaining on these kinds of issues is a chicken way out. One needs to vote yea or nay and state the reasons why. That’s leadership. Closing oneself off from such hard decisions, stamping your foot and saying “No, I’ll never go there!” is what an adolescent does when confronted with tough choices. This isn’t a stance – it’s a head-in-the-sand retreat.
I had hoped that Mr. Sebastiani would take his too easily gained position on the council to learn and grow into the position of a leader, but I’ve seen no indication of that. Quite the contrary. But cockeyed optimist that I am, I will hold that as a future possibility. Until such time I will play Jimminy Cricket to his Pinocchio, and hope that some leviathan-like happenstance will come his way, and he’ll see the light within the confined darkness of his own making.
Most of the decisions made by our council regard land use and property zoning, or budgetary priorities. Many of the growth and development decisions, as well as aesthetic configurations (building size, architecture, business signs, etc.) are made by the Planning Commission anyway. Yes, the Planning Commission members are chosen by the City Council, and occasionally the council settles some planning disputes, but the former function is an opening for bias, and the latter is arbitrary. We could as easily elect a Planning Commission. Establishing a budget for the city has little to do with creating revenue, this is more or less dependent on outside forces and the vicissitudes of economic markets, and the expenditure of funds could be managed by any competent accountant. The Chamber of Commerce concentrates on promoting Sonoma businesses, and the Sonoma Visitors Bureau promotes our town as an attractive destination for the all important tourist trade.
There are two water use agencies, the City of Sonoma Water Department and the Valley of the Moon Water District that monitor and regulate water and waste-water, and many of those regulations are dictated by the county, state agencies or regional boards.
The everyday functioning of the city is done by professionals in their fields – city management, Planning Direction, building and maintenance operatives – that are far more experienced and knowledgeable than most of our citizen politicians. As to providing for public safety we have a Police Department and a Fire Department. And there’s a school board and a hospital board that concerns itself with those matters.
So this begs the question: What are the real need, the necessity for and the functioning of a Sonoma City Council? What makes a group of amateurs more equipped to deal with and make decisions about the aforementioned matters?
Councilman Sebastiani says it’s not the council’s business to consider or engage in anything other than those areas I’ve enumerated. Possibly I’ve left out some vital function only a council member might be more qualified to handle than a paid, experienced professional. Perhaps Mr. Sebastiani will enlighten us in this regard.
Given the narrow parameters, physically and politically as regards the functions of a city council as defined by Mr. Sebastiani, I fail to see what earthly purpose a city council member serves when there are much more qualified professionals to do the job. Is he equipped to make better business decisions for the city? He’s 27 years old, and his only experience is working in a family owned business. Has he started and run his own business successfully?
Perhaps he has some expertise about housing – construction, costs, renovation, green building, or the housing market, etc. Perhaps he knows about road maintenance. But then we already have competent and experienced city departments that deal with these matters. And if public safety, health care and education are handled by other agencies, and are not within the city’s jurisdiction or even sphere of interest by Mr. Sebastiani’s reckoning – Sonoma Police are ultimately answerable to the County Sheriff’s Department – then exactly what is it he’s needed for? Help me out here, August; give me your raison d’etre.
My point here, granted proffered in a facetious way, is this. We elect a city council to take leadership roles when it comes to making decisions about matters of concern that will have effects on and implications for most if not all of our residents. Again, city managers and their professional staff are equipped to handle most of the city’s business and legal matters. Can this be corrupted and self-serving? You bet, and a function of city councils is to be a watchdog and see that doesn’t happen. That requires knowing a good deal about city management. Is this Mr. Sebastiani’s area of expertise? What prior experience has given him this education? He didn’t serve on any city commissions or boards, ad hoc committees or even service organizations, before jumping on to the city council.
The only area of leadership, if one could call it that, which Mr. Sebastiani has leapt into was challenging our nation’s Constitutional First Amendment by attempting to breach the wall of separation between church and state in having religious symbols and displays on the public square. That’s the only instance of “leadership” that I’ve seen him display as he exhorted his followers to push on deeper into the waters of constitutional law. Was this a vital matter of concern for most Sonoma residents? Hardly. Mr. Sebastiani says he’s a councilman, not a “lobbyist” for certain concerns or interests, but he lobbied his little brains out for this issue – and lost to boot. Mr. Sebastiani is rather selective when it comes to seeing some issues as within or outside his so-called jurisdiction.
City councils, others, and ours take on all kinds of issues – national, state, regional or local, when it’s determined that the criteria being judged will effect or impact its citizenry. This is where leadership comes in. It is incumbent upon council members to study and to know the ramifications of these matters so that they can try to make informed and intelligent decisions. Abstaining on these kinds of issues is a chicken way out. One needs to vote yea or nay and state the reasons why. That’s leadership. Closing oneself off from such hard decisions, stamping your foot and saying “No, I’ll never go there!” is what an adolescent does when confronted with tough choices. This isn’t a stance – it’s a head-in-the-sand retreat.
I had hoped that Mr. Sebastiani would take his too easily gained position on the council to learn and grow into the position of a leader, but I’ve seen no indication of that. Quite the contrary. But cockeyed optimist that I am, I will hold that as a future possibility. Until such time I will play Jimminy Cricket to his Pinocchio, and hope that some leviathan-like happenstance will come his way, and he’ll see the light within the confined darkness of his own making.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Aerial Spraying: Not Safe, Not Effective, Not Necessary
Does being repeatedly sprayed with a toxic pesticide over the course of the next 5-10 years appeal to you? Consider that this pesticide has not been tested for its short or long-term effects on human health or its impacts on the environment. Then note that aerial spraying already began in late ’07 in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties resulting in over 600 health complaints, as well as reports of environmental damage.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) claims that it must conduct a blanket and long-term program of aerial pesticide spraying to eradicate an infestation of the light brown apple moth (LBAM) because it may pose a threat to various crops, plants and trees. It has declared a state of emergency in order to do this without environmental review or public health testing.
However the fact of the matter is that the LBAM has been in California for at least 30 years with no devastation of any crops or plant life, by CDFA’s own admission. The LBAM originated from New Zealand and Australia, has been there for 100 years or more, and there too no crop or plant life devastation on record. In fact those countries don’t use aerial spraying, and have opted for the least toxic and most natural methods of pest control that do not put human or environmental health at risk. So what is the “emergency”?
At least 10 Bay Area counties including Richmond, San Francisco and Marin have been targeted for blanket aerial spraying to begin in August of this year. Aerial and other blanket pesticide applications have repeatedly been shown in the past to upset natural ecosystem balance in unpredictable and often catastrophic ways, having serious human health effects as well. CDFA is relying on pesticides that contain ingredients that are highly toxic to aquatic life.
Incredibly the State began aerial spraying, initially in Santa Cruz and Monterey, before a mandatory environmental impact report (EIR) was conducted; skirting this environmental protection by declaring a state of emergency. Equally disturbing are the facts that aerial spraying of chemicals are expensive and inefficient, and biologists have testified that spraying is extremely unlikely to eradicate the LBAM.
A recent scientific study indicates that pesticide spray particles can penetrate deeply into the lungs posing a significant health risk. Most at risk are vulnerable populations: infants, children, the elderly, field workers and those with compromised immune systems. And most alarmingly the LBAM spraying program has not been tested for toxic health effects when used in areas of concentrated population. The State has relied almost entirely on its own scientists to address public concerns about the spray program, and has not employed independent outside experts to evaluate and support the program or address issues in a direct and impartial manner.
To date 19 cities and counties, representing over 850,000 people, have passed resolutions urging the Department of Food and Agriculture to impose a moratorium on any aerial spraying that is a part of the LBAM eradication campaign until the Department can demonstrate that the pesticide it has used or ones it may use is both safe to humans and animals. In addition bills in the state Senate and Assembly have called for protection of citizens constitutional rights of informed consent, and completion of an EIR before aerial application resumes.
Until independent and impartial testing is done one can only assume that blanket and prolonged aerial spraying is not safe, is not effective, and is not necessary.
The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) claims that it must conduct a blanket and long-term program of aerial pesticide spraying to eradicate an infestation of the light brown apple moth (LBAM) because it may pose a threat to various crops, plants and trees. It has declared a state of emergency in order to do this without environmental review or public health testing.
However the fact of the matter is that the LBAM has been in California for at least 30 years with no devastation of any crops or plant life, by CDFA’s own admission. The LBAM originated from New Zealand and Australia, has been there for 100 years or more, and there too no crop or plant life devastation on record. In fact those countries don’t use aerial spraying, and have opted for the least toxic and most natural methods of pest control that do not put human or environmental health at risk. So what is the “emergency”?
At least 10 Bay Area counties including Richmond, San Francisco and Marin have been targeted for blanket aerial spraying to begin in August of this year. Aerial and other blanket pesticide applications have repeatedly been shown in the past to upset natural ecosystem balance in unpredictable and often catastrophic ways, having serious human health effects as well. CDFA is relying on pesticides that contain ingredients that are highly toxic to aquatic life.
Incredibly the State began aerial spraying, initially in Santa Cruz and Monterey, before a mandatory environmental impact report (EIR) was conducted; skirting this environmental protection by declaring a state of emergency. Equally disturbing are the facts that aerial spraying of chemicals are expensive and inefficient, and biologists have testified that spraying is extremely unlikely to eradicate the LBAM.
A recent scientific study indicates that pesticide spray particles can penetrate deeply into the lungs posing a significant health risk. Most at risk are vulnerable populations: infants, children, the elderly, field workers and those with compromised immune systems. And most alarmingly the LBAM spraying program has not been tested for toxic health effects when used in areas of concentrated population. The State has relied almost entirely on its own scientists to address public concerns about the spray program, and has not employed independent outside experts to evaluate and support the program or address issues in a direct and impartial manner.
To date 19 cities and counties, representing over 850,000 people, have passed resolutions urging the Department of Food and Agriculture to impose a moratorium on any aerial spraying that is a part of the LBAM eradication campaign until the Department can demonstrate that the pesticide it has used or ones it may use is both safe to humans and animals. In addition bills in the state Senate and Assembly have called for protection of citizens constitutional rights of informed consent, and completion of an EIR before aerial application resumes.
Until independent and impartial testing is done one can only assume that blanket and prolonged aerial spraying is not safe, is not effective, and is not necessary.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Eye on the Town
As just about everyone knows this week marks the fifth anniversary – strange concept in this case – of the war in Iraq. About 140 people gathered on the Plaza to acknowledge this devastating, stupid, illegal, immoral and totally unnecessary blunder. Most of us know by now whom the murderous miscreants were who are responsible for this disaster, and the real reasons why we’re in this mess today. Astoundingly there are some who still support this mad adventure that has proved so profitable for the war-mongering industries and the oil companies. One of them is even running for president. Don’t look now Alice, but we’re about to drop into hundred-year-deep hole if this Mad-hatter gets his hands on the wheel of state.
Back on the Plaza home front the vigil proved a successful gathering – protest signs a-waving, car horns beeping in approval, and a general congeniality and solidarity among the throng. There was even a bit of street theater provided by longtime activist and anti-war stalwart Mike Smith. Mike decided to call attention to the war and occupation that has cost so many lives and so much treasure – estimates range in the trillions – and from which repercussions will be felt for decades. Bush and Cheney and the other principals responsible for this deadly insanity have burdened our children, grandchildren and generations to come with a debt load that may never be repaid. It is only now with the nation’s economy going into a recession that may last for years that the results of this war are coming home to roost.
So Mike decided to make a statement and deliberately get himself arrested in a minor act of civil disobedience. Yes, this can be considered a token gesture and its efficacy can be questioned. But symbolic or not it’s not an easy thing to do and not without some risk. No one else joined in this symbolic action including this reporter. I did accompany Mike’s legal observer, Betty Ann Spencer, to the local police station that held Mike for about a half hour, cited him, and let him go. He rejoined the vigil. Anyone who thinks it’s easy to take a principled stand, get arrested and handcuffed by 4-5 burly policemen, and taken in a squad car to sit alone in police custody should try it sometime. Token or symbolic gesture, it takes guts.
Mike had prepared a statement as to why he was taking this action, which says in part: “I am committing civil disobedience and bearing moral witness in the tradition of Thoreau, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr., by breaking a law of our government [blocking the flow of traffic]. I am acting out of love and compassion for the members of our armed forces; my sorrow for the suffering of the people of Iraq; my respect for our Constitution, and love of my country.” *Editor’s note: Mike’s full statement can be seen at the end of this column.
=====
Town follies
There are certain personalities that exude a kind of arrogance not based on any particular accomplishment, achievement or outstanding personal characteristic This was the defining demeanor of a member of the public who mouthed a distasteful little sermon at last Wednesday’s council meeting. The perpetrator’s name is irrelevant as is the man himself – an individual of absolutely no standing or significance in this community who used his 3-minutes for public comments to attack City Councilman Ken Brown on purely personal, completely unsubstantial grounds. The man’s comments did not address any issue, large or small, that has come before the council or is a matter of interest to the public at large. Nothing, zero, zilch was uttered critical of the policies, procedures, programs or services of the City Council, or anything within the jurisdiction of that political agency. Just a personal attack about clothing style, personal “grooming”, and a perceived attitude of the councilman toward other than his constituents. And in cowardly fashion the speaker left the room before hearing any response from the council.
And here is where it really gets interesting. Instead of nailing this guy, who didn’t even have the guts to state his full name, Mayor Joann Sanders let him rattle on, and said absolutely nothing. Not a word of admonition that this was a purely personal, ad hominen attack related to no council business whatsoever, or that protocol requires all public pronouncements to be directed to the sitting mayor, not to individual council members or city staff. No, the mayor sat dumb, inscrutably silent; never objecting to the personally insulting remarks or cautioning the speaker that he was way, way out of line.
In point of fact, Robert’s Rules of Order, which is the protocol employed by the council, states: “All remarks must be directed to the Chair [in this case the mayor]. Remarks must be courteous in language and deportment – avoid all personalities, never allude to others by name or to motives!”
Now it’s true that there is practically no matter within the realm of city business and affairs that members of the public cannot address, but no city council will entertain vicious, personal attacks of its members or other members of the public. In over 20 years of council watching I’ve never seen anything like this allowed or brooked. But Mayor Sanders sat mute, and in fact let the speaker go over the allotted 3-minutes, and at the conclusion thanked him for his remarks – yes, you heard that right – and without a word went on to the next speaker.
Amazing, and not in any grace-ful way.
Perhaps the mayor let this verbal mugging go on because the man was ostensibly coming to her defense because she’d received a lousy grade in environmental conservation and public accessibility by Sonoma County Conservation Action (SCCA), which has been grading all the city councils, and the board of supervisors in Sonoma County for many years on these criteria. It’s not possible to divine Ms. Sander’s thinking or reasoning as to why she let her pathetic paladin get away with dumping on Brown, and all his constituents to boot, but it speaks volumes as to her fitness and capabilities as a city council person. You see, the speaker had couched his assault on Brown by “grading” his strictly personal characteristics.
Just as she irresponsibly, irrationally and unilaterally launched into an annexation of the Springs, Sanders showed the same lack of deliberate thought, careful consideration and measured judgment in dealing with an outlandish situation. This and other such actions on her part calls into question her ability to function in a political system that at minimum requires the capacity to see beyond one’s ego and personal ambitions.
When it came time for council comments three members, not including Brown, voiced their displeasure about the public speaker’s comments, but Mayor Sanders had no words of redress or admonishment to offer. Brown, in a show of remarkable restraint, did not dignify the personal attack with a reply.
In light of full disclosure: I’m a friend of Ken Brown’s and have been for 20+ years, but I’d write the same about any council member who was attacked in this craven manner, like him/her or not. I think that those who know me, friend or (political) foe, would back that up. A sizeable majority has elected Ken Brown for three terms. I believe that anyone who knows him will agree that he’s one of the most accessible politicians Sonoma has ever had – to any and all, liberal or conservative – often to the dismay of some of the more hard-nosed liberals like me.
=====
*WHY CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE - MIKE SMITH
“LAST WEEKEND AT THE "WINTER SOLDIER" GATHERING IN MARYLAND VETERANS OF THE IRAQ OCCUPATION TESTIFIED OVER THREE DAYS ABOUT THEIR EXPERIENCES IN THE MILITARY AND SERVING IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.
IN 1971 VIET NAM VETERANS TESTIFIED IN THE FIRST "WINTER SOLDIER" CONVENTION ABOUT THEIR EXPERIENCES IN VIET NAM. IN THE SUBSEQUENT CONGRESSIONAL HEARING VIET NAM VETERAN JOHN KERRY ASKED HIS ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES..."WHO WILL BE THE LAST TO DIE FOR A MISTAKE?". THE VIET NAM WAR WENT ON FOR ANOTHER FOUR YEARS!
FIVE YEARS AGO, MANY OF US STOOD ON THIS PLAZA PROTESTING THE START OF THE IRAG INVASION. I JOINED 18 OTHER SONOMANS IN A SYMBOLIC ACT OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE AGAINST THE BEGINNING OF OUR GOVERNMENT’S ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, AND UNJUST WAR.
FIVE YEARS LATER ALMOST 4,000 MEN AND WOMEN OF OUR ARMED SERVICES HAVE GIVEN THEIR LIVES, THOUSAND MORE HAVE BEEN MAIMED AND CRIPPLED AND OVER ONE MILLION CITIZENS OF IRAQ HAVE DIED. OUR ECONOMY IS IN RUINS. OUR PEOPLE LACK JOBS, HOUSING, HEALTH CARE, AFFORDABLE EDUCATION, AND A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT. GEORGE BUSH AND DICK CHENEY HAVE NOT BEEN IMPEACHED FOR THEIR LIES, ILLEGAL ACTS, AND ASSAULTS ON OUR CONSTITUTION.
I AM COMMITTING CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE AND BEARING MORAL WITNESS IN THE TRADITION OF THOREAU, GHANDI, AND MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., BY BREAKING A LAW OF OUR GOVERNMENT. I AM ACTING OUT OF LOVE AND COMPASSION FOR THE MEMBERS OF OUR ARMED FORCES; MY SORROW FOR THE SUFFERING OF THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ; MY RESPECT FOR OUR CONSTITUTION; AND LOVE OF MY COUNTRY.
I AM ALSO CALLING FOR THE THREE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES AND OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES TO IMMEDIATELY CALL FOR A CONGRESSIONAL "WINTER SOLDIERS" HEARING TO TAKE DIRECT TESTIMONY FROM THE BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE EXPERIENCED THE TRUTH OF THE IRAQ WAR.”
Back on the Plaza home front the vigil proved a successful gathering – protest signs a-waving, car horns beeping in approval, and a general congeniality and solidarity among the throng. There was even a bit of street theater provided by longtime activist and anti-war stalwart Mike Smith. Mike decided to call attention to the war and occupation that has cost so many lives and so much treasure – estimates range in the trillions – and from which repercussions will be felt for decades. Bush and Cheney and the other principals responsible for this deadly insanity have burdened our children, grandchildren and generations to come with a debt load that may never be repaid. It is only now with the nation’s economy going into a recession that may last for years that the results of this war are coming home to roost.
So Mike decided to make a statement and deliberately get himself arrested in a minor act of civil disobedience. Yes, this can be considered a token gesture and its efficacy can be questioned. But symbolic or not it’s not an easy thing to do and not without some risk. No one else joined in this symbolic action including this reporter. I did accompany Mike’s legal observer, Betty Ann Spencer, to the local police station that held Mike for about a half hour, cited him, and let him go. He rejoined the vigil. Anyone who thinks it’s easy to take a principled stand, get arrested and handcuffed by 4-5 burly policemen, and taken in a squad car to sit alone in police custody should try it sometime. Token or symbolic gesture, it takes guts.
Mike had prepared a statement as to why he was taking this action, which says in part: “I am committing civil disobedience and bearing moral witness in the tradition of Thoreau, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr., by breaking a law of our government [blocking the flow of traffic]. I am acting out of love and compassion for the members of our armed forces; my sorrow for the suffering of the people of Iraq; my respect for our Constitution, and love of my country.” *Editor’s note: Mike’s full statement can be seen at the end of this column.
=====
Town follies
There are certain personalities that exude a kind of arrogance not based on any particular accomplishment, achievement or outstanding personal characteristic This was the defining demeanor of a member of the public who mouthed a distasteful little sermon at last Wednesday’s council meeting. The perpetrator’s name is irrelevant as is the man himself – an individual of absolutely no standing or significance in this community who used his 3-minutes for public comments to attack City Councilman Ken Brown on purely personal, completely unsubstantial grounds. The man’s comments did not address any issue, large or small, that has come before the council or is a matter of interest to the public at large. Nothing, zero, zilch was uttered critical of the policies, procedures, programs or services of the City Council, or anything within the jurisdiction of that political agency. Just a personal attack about clothing style, personal “grooming”, and a perceived attitude of the councilman toward other than his constituents. And in cowardly fashion the speaker left the room before hearing any response from the council.
And here is where it really gets interesting. Instead of nailing this guy, who didn’t even have the guts to state his full name, Mayor Joann Sanders let him rattle on, and said absolutely nothing. Not a word of admonition that this was a purely personal, ad hominen attack related to no council business whatsoever, or that protocol requires all public pronouncements to be directed to the sitting mayor, not to individual council members or city staff. No, the mayor sat dumb, inscrutably silent; never objecting to the personally insulting remarks or cautioning the speaker that he was way, way out of line.
In point of fact, Robert’s Rules of Order, which is the protocol employed by the council, states: “All remarks must be directed to the Chair [in this case the mayor]. Remarks must be courteous in language and deportment – avoid all personalities, never allude to others by name or to motives!”
Now it’s true that there is practically no matter within the realm of city business and affairs that members of the public cannot address, but no city council will entertain vicious, personal attacks of its members or other members of the public. In over 20 years of council watching I’ve never seen anything like this allowed or brooked. But Mayor Sanders sat mute, and in fact let the speaker go over the allotted 3-minutes, and at the conclusion thanked him for his remarks – yes, you heard that right – and without a word went on to the next speaker.
Amazing, and not in any grace-ful way.
Perhaps the mayor let this verbal mugging go on because the man was ostensibly coming to her defense because she’d received a lousy grade in environmental conservation and public accessibility by Sonoma County Conservation Action (SCCA), which has been grading all the city councils, and the board of supervisors in Sonoma County for many years on these criteria. It’s not possible to divine Ms. Sander’s thinking or reasoning as to why she let her pathetic paladin get away with dumping on Brown, and all his constituents to boot, but it speaks volumes as to her fitness and capabilities as a city council person. You see, the speaker had couched his assault on Brown by “grading” his strictly personal characteristics.
Just as she irresponsibly, irrationally and unilaterally launched into an annexation of the Springs, Sanders showed the same lack of deliberate thought, careful consideration and measured judgment in dealing with an outlandish situation. This and other such actions on her part calls into question her ability to function in a political system that at minimum requires the capacity to see beyond one’s ego and personal ambitions.
When it came time for council comments three members, not including Brown, voiced their displeasure about the public speaker’s comments, but Mayor Sanders had no words of redress or admonishment to offer. Brown, in a show of remarkable restraint, did not dignify the personal attack with a reply.
In light of full disclosure: I’m a friend of Ken Brown’s and have been for 20+ years, but I’d write the same about any council member who was attacked in this craven manner, like him/her or not. I think that those who know me, friend or (political) foe, would back that up. A sizeable majority has elected Ken Brown for three terms. I believe that anyone who knows him will agree that he’s one of the most accessible politicians Sonoma has ever had – to any and all, liberal or conservative – often to the dismay of some of the more hard-nosed liberals like me.
=====
*WHY CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE - MIKE SMITH
“LAST WEEKEND AT THE "WINTER SOLDIER" GATHERING IN MARYLAND VETERANS OF THE IRAQ OCCUPATION TESTIFIED OVER THREE DAYS ABOUT THEIR EXPERIENCES IN THE MILITARY AND SERVING IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.
IN 1971 VIET NAM VETERANS TESTIFIED IN THE FIRST "WINTER SOLDIER" CONVENTION ABOUT THEIR EXPERIENCES IN VIET NAM. IN THE SUBSEQUENT CONGRESSIONAL HEARING VIET NAM VETERAN JOHN KERRY ASKED HIS ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES..."WHO WILL BE THE LAST TO DIE FOR A MISTAKE?". THE VIET NAM WAR WENT ON FOR ANOTHER FOUR YEARS!
FIVE YEARS AGO, MANY OF US STOOD ON THIS PLAZA PROTESTING THE START OF THE IRAG INVASION. I JOINED 18 OTHER SONOMANS IN A SYMBOLIC ACT OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE AGAINST THE BEGINNING OF OUR GOVERNMENT’S ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, AND UNJUST WAR.
FIVE YEARS LATER ALMOST 4,000 MEN AND WOMEN OF OUR ARMED SERVICES HAVE GIVEN THEIR LIVES, THOUSAND MORE HAVE BEEN MAIMED AND CRIPPLED AND OVER ONE MILLION CITIZENS OF IRAQ HAVE DIED. OUR ECONOMY IS IN RUINS. OUR PEOPLE LACK JOBS, HOUSING, HEALTH CARE, AFFORDABLE EDUCATION, AND A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT. GEORGE BUSH AND DICK CHENEY HAVE NOT BEEN IMPEACHED FOR THEIR LIES, ILLEGAL ACTS, AND ASSAULTS ON OUR CONSTITUTION.
I AM COMMITTING CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE AND BEARING MORAL WITNESS IN THE TRADITION OF THOREAU, GHANDI, AND MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., BY BREAKING A LAW OF OUR GOVERNMENT. I AM ACTING OUT OF LOVE AND COMPASSION FOR THE MEMBERS OF OUR ARMED FORCES; MY SORROW FOR THE SUFFERING OF THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ; MY RESPECT FOR OUR CONSTITUTION; AND LOVE OF MY COUNTRY.
I AM ALSO CALLING FOR THE THREE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES AND OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES TO IMMEDIATELY CALL FOR A CONGRESSIONAL "WINTER SOLDIERS" HEARING TO TAKE DIRECT TESTIMONY FROM THE BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE EXPERIENCED THE TRUTH OF THE IRAQ WAR.”
Monday, March 10, 2008
On Writing
Lately I’ve been asked by friends or acquaintances what I’m doing – what I’m up to. It’s a standard greeting, not meant to pry, and usually draws a brief run-down of my exceedingly mundane exploits.
“Oh, not that much,” I say. “Working around my place, helping Zoe with college applications, doing a little writing.” At this point my voice usually trails off. Sometimes I’m asked what I’m writing about. My general response is, “Different things. You know, the usual political stuff. I’m even playing around with fiction.” Occasionally there’s some interest around the ‘fiction’ part, but if pressed further I usually dodge the answer.
I do this avoidance dance for two reasons: One, because I really believe that talking about one’s writing when it’s ongoing takes the energy away from it, as well as the impetus to continue with it. I know it works that way with me. The second reason is that often I don’t know what I’m going to write until I start to do it. Often I don’t go into it with a game plan. I’ll just go with the thoughts that arise and see where it goes.
If I were to answer the “doing” question truthfully though, I’d say, “Mostly I’m spending my time writing. There are other things I’m attending to, but mostly I’m writing.” I haven’t had the courage to say this because it seems too lazy, arrogant, cerebral, self-important, effete, indulgent, and half the other descriptors in the dictionary. So I’m stuck mouthing a phony answer, and avoiding talking about what it is I’m really doing. Here’s what I would say to the question if I could manage to do it in just a couple of sentences.
I’m writing. I’m a writer. That’s what I do a good deal of the time. It doesn’t mean anything in saying this other than stating the activity I’m most engaged in. It doesn’t suggest that I’m any good at it, or that the writing is good, bad or indifferent. That’s for others to judge. It’s just something I do the way other people garden, or play golf, or go fishing or paint pictures. As for the reasons I do this, that’s another part of the story.
Dialogue with myself
One reason I write is that it’s fully absorbing. Paradoxically it both takes me out of myself, and at the same time puts me into myself more deeply. When I’m writing I am totally focused on the thoughts that come up, and then the ensuing challenge to express these thoughts as accurately and succinctly as possible. That’s the game, and I’ve been captivated by it from early on. The writer gets caught up in the thinking-writing process, and for brief periods the egoic “I” or “me” is on hold, or out of the office so to speak. Breaking free of the watchful, almost always present “me” is liberating. It frees me from the presence of that hovering critical observer.
At the same time, because writing stimulates the thinking process, it gives the writer the chance to find out shat he/se really thinks about something. For instance I’ve found out that I don’t know what I truly think about something until I’ve given it a lot of thought. We all voice our opinions about things – politics, relationships, cultural conditions, entertainment, what-have-you – often and freely. But I wonder if most of what we have to say on these matters is really what we think, or merely what we’ve adopted from what others think; people whose opinions bombard us from TV, radio and print. Are we just parroting the thoughts of others we respect or admire and passing it off as our own? How much of what we mouth as our opinions, our thoughts on some matter, is the result of finely attuning to our own thoughts – finding out through close examination what it is we really think about some matter? My guess is, very little.
So for me an important function of writing is finding out what it is I truly think about something by taking the time to think about the arguments and merits of the matter and working it out on paper. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the outcome is some brilliant conclusion – often that’s not the case. Too often it leads to further indecision and the realization I don’t know enough to form a conclusive opinion.
And that’s the seemingly contradictory nature of writing, for me: A way to lose myself and a way to find myself.
The critic
Another reason I write is to give voice to the critic: To voice my dissent, dissatisfaction, dismay and disgust with so much I see going on all around. I write because I feel compelled to comment on the scene. I’d say it in the poetry of songs if I could, but I can’t. I don’t have that talent.
I write to voice my disapproval about how things are and why I think it should be different. Anger and frustration are the usual motivators, and I’m egotistical enough to think I have something of value to say. About ten years ago I began writing a newsletter commenting on the local scene in Sonoma, and mouthing off about the local issues of the day. A small number of friends (5-6) joined me in this endeavor.
Writing and publishing the newsletter brought me in contact with some of the local policy makers and others of some influence in our little town, and I got a closer look at some of the behind the scene goings on. It provided a crash course education in the workings of the local power structure. Not that it will come as news, but what became markedly clear was how much sway the local paper had in generating and manipulating public opinion.
Like almost all communities ours has power brokers, generally based on the strength of their wallets, and how entrenched they are on the basis of longevity in these here parts. This filters down in turn to those who feed off these individuals’ dealings in the usual parasitic relationships that commonly abound. Other players of note are elected politicians who affect matters by forming policy and the regulations to back it all up. Occasionally even bureaucratic hired hands such as city managers have managed to cut a formidable swath, but they come and go more frequently whereas city councils and rich families seem to last interminably.
The newsletter publication provided me a platform for regularly shooting my mouth off about the local scene, its kabuki culture, and what was not being reported in the local paper. It also gave me a pulpit, albeit self-ordained, to voice my comments on the issues, events and human follies being played out far beyond the borders of Sonoma. This is where I began to try and hone the craft of commentary and essay writing. I’m still at that pursuit.
I don’t really know what it is that so drives me to respond to what I read, hear or see going on around me, but it is absolutely compelling. I don’t think I could not do it for very long. I think it’s an addiction that starts innocently enough with an occasional letter to the editor of some paper, but gradually and insidiously gets you hooked to the point where you have to comment in writing about something every day. Fortunately this addiction doesn’t cost very much, so my family is not going without food or clothing as a result. Well, maybe not all the clothes that would satisfy an 18 year-old daughter.
Finally, though not completely, my compulsory writing is equivalent to a dog marking its territory. It says, “I am here, of this time and place. This smell/thought is me. If you come into my territory you’ll have to deal with me. I am here; woof, woof.”
Writing is my way of marking my stay and passage on Earth. I’ve no delusions that I’m anything but a most ordinary person of no outstanding qualities or characteristics whatsoever. But even though I don’t consider myself special in any way, I’m still inexplicably driven to express as truthfully as I can how I interpret and therefore experience this journey of a lifetime.
I’ve little doubt that what I have to say in this regard is of much interest to other than a relative few, and that’s an optimistic assessment. Nonetheless there is this urge to put the thoughts and feelings down in some form – words in my case – for others to see.
Billions of us humans infest this planet, and from a certain aerial distance we seem nothing more than ants. Yet because we are each endowed with the faculty of self- awareness and self-reflection we experience our lives in a personal way. How we interpret and understand the world and our experiences in it is subjective, based on the sum of these experiences and those things – people, ideas, circumstances, etc. – that we’ve come into contact with and been influenced by.
We may be nothing more than swarms of ants, but each and every one of us is a package of experiences and stories uniquely our own. It’s this I want to convey. Maybe all of us ants want to tell our stories: This is what happened to me; this is how I see it; this is what it feels like to me. I expect that’s true, and I think we do it in ways other than writing it down. But that’s how this one does it. In answer to your question.
“Oh, not that much,” I say. “Working around my place, helping Zoe with college applications, doing a little writing.” At this point my voice usually trails off. Sometimes I’m asked what I’m writing about. My general response is, “Different things. You know, the usual political stuff. I’m even playing around with fiction.” Occasionally there’s some interest around the ‘fiction’ part, but if pressed further I usually dodge the answer.
I do this avoidance dance for two reasons: One, because I really believe that talking about one’s writing when it’s ongoing takes the energy away from it, as well as the impetus to continue with it. I know it works that way with me. The second reason is that often I don’t know what I’m going to write until I start to do it. Often I don’t go into it with a game plan. I’ll just go with the thoughts that arise and see where it goes.
If I were to answer the “doing” question truthfully though, I’d say, “Mostly I’m spending my time writing. There are other things I’m attending to, but mostly I’m writing.” I haven’t had the courage to say this because it seems too lazy, arrogant, cerebral, self-important, effete, indulgent, and half the other descriptors in the dictionary. So I’m stuck mouthing a phony answer, and avoiding talking about what it is I’m really doing. Here’s what I would say to the question if I could manage to do it in just a couple of sentences.
I’m writing. I’m a writer. That’s what I do a good deal of the time. It doesn’t mean anything in saying this other than stating the activity I’m most engaged in. It doesn’t suggest that I’m any good at it, or that the writing is good, bad or indifferent. That’s for others to judge. It’s just something I do the way other people garden, or play golf, or go fishing or paint pictures. As for the reasons I do this, that’s another part of the story.
Dialogue with myself
One reason I write is that it’s fully absorbing. Paradoxically it both takes me out of myself, and at the same time puts me into myself more deeply. When I’m writing I am totally focused on the thoughts that come up, and then the ensuing challenge to express these thoughts as accurately and succinctly as possible. That’s the game, and I’ve been captivated by it from early on. The writer gets caught up in the thinking-writing process, and for brief periods the egoic “I” or “me” is on hold, or out of the office so to speak. Breaking free of the watchful, almost always present “me” is liberating. It frees me from the presence of that hovering critical observer.
At the same time, because writing stimulates the thinking process, it gives the writer the chance to find out shat he/se really thinks about something. For instance I’ve found out that I don’t know what I truly think about something until I’ve given it a lot of thought. We all voice our opinions about things – politics, relationships, cultural conditions, entertainment, what-have-you – often and freely. But I wonder if most of what we have to say on these matters is really what we think, or merely what we’ve adopted from what others think; people whose opinions bombard us from TV, radio and print. Are we just parroting the thoughts of others we respect or admire and passing it off as our own? How much of what we mouth as our opinions, our thoughts on some matter, is the result of finely attuning to our own thoughts – finding out through close examination what it is we really think about some matter? My guess is, very little.
So for me an important function of writing is finding out what it is I truly think about something by taking the time to think about the arguments and merits of the matter and working it out on paper. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the outcome is some brilliant conclusion – often that’s not the case. Too often it leads to further indecision and the realization I don’t know enough to form a conclusive opinion.
And that’s the seemingly contradictory nature of writing, for me: A way to lose myself and a way to find myself.
The critic
Another reason I write is to give voice to the critic: To voice my dissent, dissatisfaction, dismay and disgust with so much I see going on all around. I write because I feel compelled to comment on the scene. I’d say it in the poetry of songs if I could, but I can’t. I don’t have that talent.
I write to voice my disapproval about how things are and why I think it should be different. Anger and frustration are the usual motivators, and I’m egotistical enough to think I have something of value to say. About ten years ago I began writing a newsletter commenting on the local scene in Sonoma, and mouthing off about the local issues of the day. A small number of friends (5-6) joined me in this endeavor.
Writing and publishing the newsletter brought me in contact with some of the local policy makers and others of some influence in our little town, and I got a closer look at some of the behind the scene goings on. It provided a crash course education in the workings of the local power structure. Not that it will come as news, but what became markedly clear was how much sway the local paper had in generating and manipulating public opinion.
Like almost all communities ours has power brokers, generally based on the strength of their wallets, and how entrenched they are on the basis of longevity in these here parts. This filters down in turn to those who feed off these individuals’ dealings in the usual parasitic relationships that commonly abound. Other players of note are elected politicians who affect matters by forming policy and the regulations to back it all up. Occasionally even bureaucratic hired hands such as city managers have managed to cut a formidable swath, but they come and go more frequently whereas city councils and rich families seem to last interminably.
The newsletter publication provided me a platform for regularly shooting my mouth off about the local scene, its kabuki culture, and what was not being reported in the local paper. It also gave me a pulpit, albeit self-ordained, to voice my comments on the issues, events and human follies being played out far beyond the borders of Sonoma. This is where I began to try and hone the craft of commentary and essay writing. I’m still at that pursuit.
I don’t really know what it is that so drives me to respond to what I read, hear or see going on around me, but it is absolutely compelling. I don’t think I could not do it for very long. I think it’s an addiction that starts innocently enough with an occasional letter to the editor of some paper, but gradually and insidiously gets you hooked to the point where you have to comment in writing about something every day. Fortunately this addiction doesn’t cost very much, so my family is not going without food or clothing as a result. Well, maybe not all the clothes that would satisfy an 18 year-old daughter.
Finally, though not completely, my compulsory writing is equivalent to a dog marking its territory. It says, “I am here, of this time and place. This smell/thought is me. If you come into my territory you’ll have to deal with me. I am here; woof, woof.”
Writing is my way of marking my stay and passage on Earth. I’ve no delusions that I’m anything but a most ordinary person of no outstanding qualities or characteristics whatsoever. But even though I don’t consider myself special in any way, I’m still inexplicably driven to express as truthfully as I can how I interpret and therefore experience this journey of a lifetime.
I’ve little doubt that what I have to say in this regard is of much interest to other than a relative few, and that’s an optimistic assessment. Nonetheless there is this urge to put the thoughts and feelings down in some form – words in my case – for others to see.
Billions of us humans infest this planet, and from a certain aerial distance we seem nothing more than ants. Yet because we are each endowed with the faculty of self- awareness and self-reflection we experience our lives in a personal way. How we interpret and understand the world and our experiences in it is subjective, based on the sum of these experiences and those things – people, ideas, circumstances, etc. – that we’ve come into contact with and been influenced by.
We may be nothing more than swarms of ants, but each and every one of us is a package of experiences and stories uniquely our own. It’s this I want to convey. Maybe all of us ants want to tell our stories: This is what happened to me; this is how I see it; this is what it feels like to me. I expect that’s true, and I think we do it in ways other than writing it down. But that’s how this one does it. In answer to your question.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Notes From the Edge
Earth moves elliptically in its invisible track around the sun and completes another passage. All of science and provable evidence indicates that this process has been going on for billions of years, whereas our redoubtable species is a relative latecomer appearing somewhere in the last two million years. If all of time was a 24-hour clock we humans would have come upon the scene sometime in the last five minutes. Gives one pause; or should.
Of course this is all if you believe in science, empirical little bugger that it is. Some do, some don’t. Some folks insist the Earth is 6000 years old, despite history, geography, biology and all that’s irrefutably provable. Well, why should we believe our lying eyes and rational mind just because those instruments define and describe objective reality? Maybe everything is subjective, and only exists in the mind of the beholder. After all, why let facts get in the way when faith in what’s true or not is so much more … comfortable?
Mr. Lagacy
And speaking of faith-based thinking let us turn our thoughts to our if-his-lips-are-moving-he-must-be-lying President and his legacy. Our soon to be departed (from the White House, that is) walking disaster, he who lies practically with every breath, the dull dispenser of misery who’s brought incompetence to a world class level, is leaving the stage. Hopefully, if there is a God, or karma, or justice, never to be heard from again. He and his neo-loony crew have almost single-handedly, albeit with the able assistance of a compliant and easily bullied Congress brought our nation to new depths of degradation by practically any standards. To wit: Fabricating reasons for going to war and occupying that country; repealing civil liberties and Constitutional rights; illegally spying on the U.S. population’s phone calls and e-mails; breaking the code of conduct on the treatment of detainees set by the Geneva Conventions, and violating UN and U.S. laws prohibiting the use of torture; presiding over a failed economy while benefiting the wealthiest one percent with billions in tax cuts – and that’s just for openers.
No matter where you look the Bush crew has left greater suffering and more despair in its wake. More people without health insurance; more costly health care; a crumbling infrastructure, and a feeble education system drastically under funded because the national treasure goes to two wars and the occupation of Iraq; and the response to Katrina – need more be said? Add to these ignominious accomplishments a stagnant minimum wage guaranteed to keep people in working poverty, and greater pollution and fewer environmental protections – all in the service of industry and its profits. Incompetence, lying, unaccountability and secrecy of totalitarian proportions have been the landmarks of the Bush regime. These and other transgressions and failures comprise the Bush legacy. A recent political cartoon showed Bush being read a list of these abject failures, and him saying,” Well, I guess my work here is done.”
Oh please, Dear Lord, or whom or what rules the universe, hear this agnostic’s prayer, and grant that we may never hear from or gaze upon these radical Republican miscreants, these sycophants, enablers or benefactors alike until the end of time. And then some.
………………
From macro to micro
Hey, how about that City Council, folks, can they dazzle and delight or what?
The new mayor, and she seems to be relishing the role, never being one for half measures, unfurled a modest proposal – annexing the Springs – just to test the waters, one reckons, and the proverbial do-do hit the fan. Calling Ms. Sanders annexation idea half-baked is crediting her with having thought it out that much.
Turns out the Springs has a lot of long-and-hard-fought- for redevelopment money finally coming its way if it passes approval by the county Board of Supervisors. That vote comes up soon. Talk of annexing the Springs so it all becomes one big fat City of Sonoma would effectively queer that deal because the county is not about to grant the redevelopment funds (over $100 million), earmarked for Springs’ improvements, to the City of Sonoma to spend however it wishes.
This was brought to the mayor’s attention after she unloaded her little bomb at a recent State of the Valley speech fest. One wonders what thoughts went through District Supervisor Valerie Brown’s mind when Sanders unveiled her annexation brainstorm. Perhaps Sanders was unaware that the long-awaited Springs redevelopment money would be put in jeopardy by an annexation proposal at a critical time for Board of Supervisor support. Doesn’t seem likely, but it’s possible. She certainly knew after the fact in no uncertain terms when Springs’ leadership spokespersons made clear at a subsequent meeting with Sanders, and in an Op Ed in the Index-Tribune, that her timing couldn’t have been worse.
But despite knowing that the timing of her grandiose idea could cause the Springs to lose its desperately needed infrastructure and business development money, she put the item on the council agenda of 2/20.
And what a meeting it was. Lots of pro and con comments from lots of folks, city and county, concluding in a 5-0 council vote to table all talk of annexation at this juncture. The idea might be brought back in a future discussion, presumably after the Supes vote on the funding, but it’s highly unlikely given that three of the council members are adamantly opposed to the scheme.
As usual, August Sebastiani eagerly supported Sander’s initial proposal to go ahead with a discussion of the idea, as well as embark on a two-to-four year annexation process itself. He could barely contain his gleeful exuberance speculating on how much juicy revenue the (new) city would get from the Sonoma Mission Inn’s transient occupancy tax (TOT). To his credit he stopped short of rubbing his hands together and licking his lips. It was subsequently explained to him that the county would still be getting a lot of that revenue from the city anyway. It was also pointed out by the three opposing council members that the costs involved in going from a small city, approximately 2.5 square miles with a population under 10,000 to one that would increase four or five-fold in size with upward of 30,000 to 40,00 people, would be enormous in terms of providing services, and the staff required to run a municipality of that size. The injection of reality onto the mayor’s Springs fantasy seemed to bring her to her senses, at least for that moment, along with the fact that the writing was on the wall as to how the vote was going to go. In the end both she and Sebastiani voted with the other three to can the discussion, but not before the good mayor got in a few swipes at Supervisor Brown, while posturing like a B-western movie sheriff that she was willing to “call her bluff” regarding the redevelopment funding vote. Easy for Sanders to hang tough when she and the city had nothing at stake.
Whether the idea of annexation is good or bad is something that can be looked at further down the line. There are pros and cons. But the discussion should start in the Springs. It should be up to the Springs’ folks whether or not they’re interested in being annexed. That’s step one. And, as was pointed out by Springs Task Force representative Steve Cox, there are any number of ways the city and the Springs can affiliate, and work jointly for higher quality of living by joining forces and forging agreements beneficial to both entities.
Hopefully Ms. Sanders will calm down, take a few deep breaths, not make this a personal matter, and explore her idea in depth and with careful consideration of all its ramifications.
Of course this is all if you believe in science, empirical little bugger that it is. Some do, some don’t. Some folks insist the Earth is 6000 years old, despite history, geography, biology and all that’s irrefutably provable. Well, why should we believe our lying eyes and rational mind just because those instruments define and describe objective reality? Maybe everything is subjective, and only exists in the mind of the beholder. After all, why let facts get in the way when faith in what’s true or not is so much more … comfortable?
Mr. Lagacy
And speaking of faith-based thinking let us turn our thoughts to our if-his-lips-are-moving-he-must-be-lying President and his legacy. Our soon to be departed (from the White House, that is) walking disaster, he who lies practically with every breath, the dull dispenser of misery who’s brought incompetence to a world class level, is leaving the stage. Hopefully, if there is a God, or karma, or justice, never to be heard from again. He and his neo-loony crew have almost single-handedly, albeit with the able assistance of a compliant and easily bullied Congress brought our nation to new depths of degradation by practically any standards. To wit: Fabricating reasons for going to war and occupying that country; repealing civil liberties and Constitutional rights; illegally spying on the U.S. population’s phone calls and e-mails; breaking the code of conduct on the treatment of detainees set by the Geneva Conventions, and violating UN and U.S. laws prohibiting the use of torture; presiding over a failed economy while benefiting the wealthiest one percent with billions in tax cuts – and that’s just for openers.
No matter where you look the Bush crew has left greater suffering and more despair in its wake. More people without health insurance; more costly health care; a crumbling infrastructure, and a feeble education system drastically under funded because the national treasure goes to two wars and the occupation of Iraq; and the response to Katrina – need more be said? Add to these ignominious accomplishments a stagnant minimum wage guaranteed to keep people in working poverty, and greater pollution and fewer environmental protections – all in the service of industry and its profits. Incompetence, lying, unaccountability and secrecy of totalitarian proportions have been the landmarks of the Bush regime. These and other transgressions and failures comprise the Bush legacy. A recent political cartoon showed Bush being read a list of these abject failures, and him saying,” Well, I guess my work here is done.”
Oh please, Dear Lord, or whom or what rules the universe, hear this agnostic’s prayer, and grant that we may never hear from or gaze upon these radical Republican miscreants, these sycophants, enablers or benefactors alike until the end of time. And then some.
………………
From macro to micro
Hey, how about that City Council, folks, can they dazzle and delight or what?
The new mayor, and she seems to be relishing the role, never being one for half measures, unfurled a modest proposal – annexing the Springs – just to test the waters, one reckons, and the proverbial do-do hit the fan. Calling Ms. Sanders annexation idea half-baked is crediting her with having thought it out that much.
Turns out the Springs has a lot of long-and-hard-fought- for redevelopment money finally coming its way if it passes approval by the county Board of Supervisors. That vote comes up soon. Talk of annexing the Springs so it all becomes one big fat City of Sonoma would effectively queer that deal because the county is not about to grant the redevelopment funds (over $100 million), earmarked for Springs’ improvements, to the City of Sonoma to spend however it wishes.
This was brought to the mayor’s attention after she unloaded her little bomb at a recent State of the Valley speech fest. One wonders what thoughts went through District Supervisor Valerie Brown’s mind when Sanders unveiled her annexation brainstorm. Perhaps Sanders was unaware that the long-awaited Springs redevelopment money would be put in jeopardy by an annexation proposal at a critical time for Board of Supervisor support. Doesn’t seem likely, but it’s possible. She certainly knew after the fact in no uncertain terms when Springs’ leadership spokespersons made clear at a subsequent meeting with Sanders, and in an Op Ed in the Index-Tribune, that her timing couldn’t have been worse.
But despite knowing that the timing of her grandiose idea could cause the Springs to lose its desperately needed infrastructure and business development money, she put the item on the council agenda of 2/20.
And what a meeting it was. Lots of pro and con comments from lots of folks, city and county, concluding in a 5-0 council vote to table all talk of annexation at this juncture. The idea might be brought back in a future discussion, presumably after the Supes vote on the funding, but it’s highly unlikely given that three of the council members are adamantly opposed to the scheme.
As usual, August Sebastiani eagerly supported Sander’s initial proposal to go ahead with a discussion of the idea, as well as embark on a two-to-four year annexation process itself. He could barely contain his gleeful exuberance speculating on how much juicy revenue the (new) city would get from the Sonoma Mission Inn’s transient occupancy tax (TOT). To his credit he stopped short of rubbing his hands together and licking his lips. It was subsequently explained to him that the county would still be getting a lot of that revenue from the city anyway. It was also pointed out by the three opposing council members that the costs involved in going from a small city, approximately 2.5 square miles with a population under 10,000 to one that would increase four or five-fold in size with upward of 30,000 to 40,00 people, would be enormous in terms of providing services, and the staff required to run a municipality of that size. The injection of reality onto the mayor’s Springs fantasy seemed to bring her to her senses, at least for that moment, along with the fact that the writing was on the wall as to how the vote was going to go. In the end both she and Sebastiani voted with the other three to can the discussion, but not before the good mayor got in a few swipes at Supervisor Brown, while posturing like a B-western movie sheriff that she was willing to “call her bluff” regarding the redevelopment funding vote. Easy for Sanders to hang tough when she and the city had nothing at stake.
Whether the idea of annexation is good or bad is something that can be looked at further down the line. There are pros and cons. But the discussion should start in the Springs. It should be up to the Springs’ folks whether or not they’re interested in being annexed. That’s step one. And, as was pointed out by Springs Task Force representative Steve Cox, there are any number of ways the city and the Springs can affiliate, and work jointly for higher quality of living by joining forces and forging agreements beneficial to both entities.
Hopefully Ms. Sanders will calm down, take a few deep breaths, not make this a personal matter, and explore her idea in depth and with careful consideration of all its ramifications.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
From Kucinich to Edwards in ‘08
Philosophically, politically speaking, I’m most in league with the ideas and principles set out and espoused by Dennis Kucinich. But acknowledging that one cannot disregard the realpolitik that governs elections, I am going to support John Edwards in the Democratic primary. Of those running, and based on his policy papers, Edwards most approximates Kucinich’s progressive political platform.
The following points regarding Edwards’ positions on some of the major issues of the day outline my reasons for supporting him.
IRAQ:
Edwards supports the immediate withdrawal of 40-50,000 troops, and a complete withdrawal of all combat troops within 9-10 months. He would leave 3,500-5000 troops to protect the embassy, and to guard humanitarian workers. He vows to have no permanent bases in Iraq, but would keep “Quick Reaction Forces” in neighboring “friendly” countries to “prevent al-Qaida safe havens, a genocide or regional spillover of a civil war.” In addition he would “step up diplomatic efforts by engaging in direct talks with all the nations in the region, including Iran and Syria….”
HEALTH CARE:
Edwards has come up with a comprehensive and specific plan to provide health care coverage for all Americans. He has outlined how the plan works, how it will be financed and why it will be significantly cheaper for individuals, families and businesses. New York Times syndicated columnist Paul Krugman says about the Edwards’ plan: “It addresses both the problem of the uninsured and the waste and inefficiency of our fragmented insurance system. And every candidate should be pressed to come up with something comparable.”
GLOBAL WARMING:
Edwards’ plan to halt global warming is based on capping greenhouse gasses at levels that the latest climate science has determined to be necessary to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. The plan aims to “reduce greenhouse pollution by 20 percent by 2020, and reduce it by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050.” The plan is based on the cap-and-trade system established by the Clean Air Act of 1990 to limit pollution by acid rain.However the levels set by the Clean Air Act were regulated, and that has not been done regarding greenhouse gasses. This is a potential weakness in reducing the pollution.
The plan advocates a new global climate change treaty with the U.S. committed to leading the way in reducing CO2 emissions. It includes investing in renewable sources of electricity (wind, solar, etc.), with a goal of companies generating 25 percent of their energy from renewables by 2025. It will raise fuel economy standards to 40 mpg by 2016. It will bring developing economies into the mix by “share[ing] clean energy technologies in exchange for binding greenhouse reduction commitments.”
POVERTY
Edwards is committed to ending poverty by 2036. He will increase the minimum wage to (at least) $9.50 an hour by 2012 and indexing it to inflation. He proposes to create one million “stepping stone” jobs, strengthening labor laws and enforcing workplace protections.
CIVIL RIGHTS & CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS
Edwards pledges to protect the Constitution, and respect and restore civil rights and freedoms. In particular he vows that the U.S. will not engage in torture, will restore habeas corpus and shut down Guantanamo, will not engage in warrantless wiretapping, and will fix provisions of the Patriot Act restoring privacy safeguards. He maintains that he will end the practice of presidential “signing statements.”
ELECTIONS
He further pledges to reform election laws, require the use of paper ballots verified by voters, and end voter intimidation and suppression.
This is only a small sampling of Edwards’ comprehensive and very detailed policy papers that comprise his platform. If one wants to see in depth what Edwards is proposing and espousing, and why, it’s all laid out on his Web site: johnedwards.com.
A final and significant point. According to a series of polls – see the Web site for specifics – Edwards proves to be the most electable Democratic candidate when matched against the Republican frontrunners. This is a most important consideration to take into account when choosing a candidate to support.
So for the reasons outlined here based on a careful consideration of his policy papers and positions, and considering the other Democratic candidates in the race, I’ve decided to support John Edwards. Just as a personal aside, I’d like to see him run with Bill Richardson as VP, and then when in office consider Dennis Kucinich for a cabinet position.
The following points regarding Edwards’ positions on some of the major issues of the day outline my reasons for supporting him.
IRAQ:
Edwards supports the immediate withdrawal of 40-50,000 troops, and a complete withdrawal of all combat troops within 9-10 months. He would leave 3,500-5000 troops to protect the embassy, and to guard humanitarian workers. He vows to have no permanent bases in Iraq, but would keep “Quick Reaction Forces” in neighboring “friendly” countries to “prevent al-Qaida safe havens, a genocide or regional spillover of a civil war.” In addition he would “step up diplomatic efforts by engaging in direct talks with all the nations in the region, including Iran and Syria….”
HEALTH CARE:
Edwards has come up with a comprehensive and specific plan to provide health care coverage for all Americans. He has outlined how the plan works, how it will be financed and why it will be significantly cheaper for individuals, families and businesses. New York Times syndicated columnist Paul Krugman says about the Edwards’ plan: “It addresses both the problem of the uninsured and the waste and inefficiency of our fragmented insurance system. And every candidate should be pressed to come up with something comparable.”
GLOBAL WARMING:
Edwards’ plan to halt global warming is based on capping greenhouse gasses at levels that the latest climate science has determined to be necessary to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. The plan aims to “reduce greenhouse pollution by 20 percent by 2020, and reduce it by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050.” The plan is based on the cap-and-trade system established by the Clean Air Act of 1990 to limit pollution by acid rain.However the levels set by the Clean Air Act were regulated, and that has not been done regarding greenhouse gasses. This is a potential weakness in reducing the pollution.
The plan advocates a new global climate change treaty with the U.S. committed to leading the way in reducing CO2 emissions. It includes investing in renewable sources of electricity (wind, solar, etc.), with a goal of companies generating 25 percent of their energy from renewables by 2025. It will raise fuel economy standards to 40 mpg by 2016. It will bring developing economies into the mix by “share[ing] clean energy technologies in exchange for binding greenhouse reduction commitments.”
POVERTY
Edwards is committed to ending poverty by 2036. He will increase the minimum wage to (at least) $9.50 an hour by 2012 and indexing it to inflation. He proposes to create one million “stepping stone” jobs, strengthening labor laws and enforcing workplace protections.
CIVIL RIGHTS & CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS
Edwards pledges to protect the Constitution, and respect and restore civil rights and freedoms. In particular he vows that the U.S. will not engage in torture, will restore habeas corpus and shut down Guantanamo, will not engage in warrantless wiretapping, and will fix provisions of the Patriot Act restoring privacy safeguards. He maintains that he will end the practice of presidential “signing statements.”
ELECTIONS
He further pledges to reform election laws, require the use of paper ballots verified by voters, and end voter intimidation and suppression.
This is only a small sampling of Edwards’ comprehensive and very detailed policy papers that comprise his platform. If one wants to see in depth what Edwards is proposing and espousing, and why, it’s all laid out on his Web site: johnedwards.com.
A final and significant point. According to a series of polls – see the Web site for specifics – Edwards proves to be the most electable Democratic candidate when matched against the Republican frontrunners. This is a most important consideration to take into account when choosing a candidate to support.
So for the reasons outlined here based on a careful consideration of his policy papers and positions, and considering the other Democratic candidates in the race, I’ve decided to support John Edwards. Just as a personal aside, I’d like to see him run with Bill Richardson as VP, and then when in office consider Dennis Kucinich for a cabinet position.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
