All I need to know I learned growing up on a farm ...

In all due respect to Robert Fulghum and his book, All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten ... (Note: Robert Fulgham's website: http://www.robertfulghum.com/) ... growing up on a small dairy farm north of Duluth, Minnesota, I learned some things about the myths of (1.) the "free" market, (2.) the "positive" effects of globalization, and (3.) "maximizing the benefit" to the collective good by pursuing self-interest.

All of these myths are quite easily debunked with a little reality therapy from living on a small farm with a small number of animals in a community of similar homesteads and families. It helps that we were also the beneficiaries of the Enlightenment and stable government institutions, living in a micro-world where our needs were met out of the rhythm of the cycles of our daily lives.

I will continue to pursue the debunking of these myths here in my blog.

For example, every farmer knows that if you dump manure on someone else's property, the other person had better have asked you to do it ... or they are going to make you clean it up. What's so hard to understand about corporations cleaning up the PCP's they dumped in the Hudson River?

Does "free" and "unfettered" markets mean that the prices of goods and services are free and unfettered from any costs that cannot be "legally" connected to their development, production, and sale? So who pays the costs of New Jersy's air pollution from Ohio and Pennsylvania? Who pays the costs of secondhand cigarette smoke? Who pays the cost of the disruption in lives of tribal villagers who have met their needs out of the rhythm of the cycles of their daily lives for millenia? Who pays these costs?

I will raise other questions regarding these myths as we go along, and have done so in the past. But with Bush(#43) going to India and tossing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty over the side ... my early wisdom included, "Remember now, don't toss the baby out with the bathwater!" ... the whole insane framework of the current globaliztion economic philosophy/mythology must be aggressively called into question ... and so many so-called intellectuals seem loathe to do so ... so it is left to farmboys from Minnesota, like me, to point out the absurdity of the current conventional wisdom in so much of the economic pronouncements eminating from "credentialed" authorities on the subject.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)

2006: The Year of the People

As a free citizen—a member of the people—of the United States of America, I hereby declare all years ending in six and having repeating digits in the hundreths and tenths positions to be henceforth designated The Year of the People in honor of our Declaration of Independence in 1776.

Thus, this year—2006—and 2116, 2226, 2336, and so forth are The Year of the People.

The Year of the People will always be a year when we elect a full House of Representatives in Congress, the House of the people.

The Year of the People will be a time when we rededicate ourselves to the committment so eloquently stated by Abraham Lincoln in The Gettysburg Address:

"It is rather for us, the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that, from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here, gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve these dead shall not have died in vain; that the nation, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people by the people for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

- Abraham Lincoln
The Gettysburg Address

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)

Why are they lying to us?!

Why are our leaders lying to us? Is it the "You can't handle the truth!" syndrone of Jack Nicholson's character—Col. Nathan R. Jessep—in A Few Good Men?

What IS it?

There is something fundamentally going wrong in a democracy when the leaders don't trust the people with the truth!

I mean, the list is getting pretty long of the outright fabrications and obfuscations by Bushes, Cheneys, Rices, Rumsfelds, Colin Powells, Chertoffs, ... Tom Friedmans ...(and those are only MY pet peevers!)

And what about this deal where the Pentagon is opening a criminal investigation into Pat Tillman's death? See http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060305/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_tillman_investigation

How bad can it get before we, the people, take our government back by electing new leaders?

Throw the bums out!

Is Tom Friedman a liar?

I received this as an e-mail from David Sirota:


{http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/tom-friedman-becomes-amer_b_16762.html}

Tom Friedman Becomes America's Chief Revisionist Historian

By David Sirota

Last week, I noted how so-called "liberal" pundits like Tom Friedman are desperately trying to distort the Dubai ports scandal so as to perpetuate the free trade orthodoxy they have spent so many years pushing. This week, we see the same dishonest behavior from Friedman when it comes to Iraq.

In a column this week about the war, Friedman concludes by saying:

"A majority of Americans, in a gut way, always understood the value of trying to produce a democratizing government in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world. That is why there has been no big antiwar movement. Americans should, and will, stick with Iraq if they sense that Iraqis are on a pathway to building a decent, stable government. But Americans will not, and should not, baby-sit an Iraqi civil war. The minute they sense that's what's happening, you will see the bottom fall out of U.S. public support for this war." There are so many lies and deliberate distortions in this paragraph it makes one's head spin.

First, Friedman's claim that the public has always supported the war because we "always understood the value" of pushing democracy in the Mideast. This is revisionist history at its worst, whereby Friedman, who loudly pushed the war

{http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=10113}

and is now clearly embarrassed about that advocacy, is trying to paint a wholly fabricated picture of what happened in the lead up to the invasion. The war was sold by the Bush administration and pundits like Friedman as necessary to defuse an "imminent threat"

{http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970}

of attack by Iraq. To this day, the public knows the "democracy" rationale is a lie. A Zogby poll released last week found that just 24% of Americans believe that "establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war. That's not a majority, even by Friedman's dishonest standards.

Second, Friedman's claim that there is "no big antiwar movement" is just straight up lying. There's no way to couch it in any other term. Millions of people protested the invasion

{http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june03/protests.html}

in towns throughout America and the world, and millions continue to vehemently oppose the neoconservative foreign policy that the Bush administration and Friedman espouse. Friedman doesn't want to acknowledge this reality because he is desperate to portray himself and his extremism as somehow mainstream when it is anything but.

Finally, and perhaps most dishonest of all, is Friedman's claim that if a civil war erupts in Iraq we "will see the bottom fall out of U.S. public support for this war" (emphasis added). What the hell is this guy talking about? What planet is he living on? Has he even bothered to actually look at the facts? I mean, really - we will see the bottom fall out of U.S. public support for this war? Last I checked, nearly every major poll from 2004
{http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/24/poll.iraq/}
until the present
{http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm}
has shown that public support for the Iraq War has evaporated. It seems the majority of people who continue to cheer on the war are ideologues like Friedman, who are scrambling to protect their own reputations and credibility after shamelessly pressing the country into Iraq in the first place. The fact that Friedman is still claiming that the public supports the war shows that he is either very comfortable lying in the pages of the New York Times, wholly divorced from reality - or both.

Now, you might say, so what? So what if a pundit like Tom Friedman is lying? He's just a columnist, right? Wrong. Friedman is not any old pundit - he is an agenda-setter. He is someone the insulated political class in Washington - especially Democrats - bows down to, regardless of how self-serving, inane or dishonest his pronouncements are. You can bet that the political chattering class in Washington read this column of his, and nodded its head in agreement - regardless of the fact that it has no relations to actual facts. When you understand this, you understand how dangerous Friedman and the pundit class really is - and you suddenly realize why the opposition party still has no real position on Iraq, and why our government's policies are so totally misguided and out of step with mainstream public opinion.

---

Some useful links:

Sirotablog

"David Sirota's online magazine of news & commentary."

http://davidsirota.com/

---

WorkingForChange

"WorkingForChange is an online journal of progressive news and opinion published by Working Assets. Visit WorkingForChange.com on a daily basis to read the latest dispatches from nationally syndicated reporters and columnists including Molly Ivins, Robert Scheer, and Greg Palast."

http://www.workingforchange.com/

Milton Friedman 'fesses up: No "free" markets!

Milton Friedman, the guru of profoundly influential monetarist and laissez-faire ideas of the past few decades has pulled the plug on free markets ... maybe without realizing it.

From NPQ, the New Perspectives Quarterly:

Free Markets and the End of History

Friedman | ... “Free markets” is a very general term. There are all sorts of problems that will emerge. Free markets work best when the transaction between two individuals affects only those individuals. But that isn’t the fact. The fact is that, most often, a transaction between you and me affects a third party. That is the source of all problems for government. That is the source of all pollution problems, of the inequality problem. There are some good economists like Gary Becker and Bob Lucas who are working on these issues. This reality ensures that the end of history will never come.

Intrepretation: Because transactions using the medium of money ALWAYS affect a third party, there is no such thing as a "free" or "unfettered" market in terms of the customary definition of the economic term. The reason for this is the clear fact that all costs incurred in the production and distribution of goods and services are not paid for out of the monetary selling price of the goods and services ... only the reimbursement of "ownership" costs ... so what is "free" about free markets is their being free of the costs they incur to others than the legally defined owners of the goods and services for sale—sellers and buyers.

Read the whole interview.

Is Dr. Condoleezza Rice a liar?

Is Dr. Condoleezza Rice a liar? You decide.

Hamas strength seen in State Department poll
By Jonathan S. Landay
Knight Ridder Newspapers

Posted on Fri, Mar. 03, 2006

"WASHINGTON - A State Department-commissioned poll taken days before January's Palestinian elections warned U.S. policymakers that the militant Islamic group Hamas was in a position to win.

"Nevertheless, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said after the election that they had no advance indication of a major Hamas triumph."

Read the full article

It's that time, folks!

Stand with Congressman Conyers

Demand Censure for Bush-Cheney Misconduct
Investigate Impeachable Offenses

http://www.johnconyers.com

"I have just completed a thorough review of this administration’s misconduct and have produced a 250-page report that provides evidence suggesting further steps to be taken. [A copy of the report may be found at RawStory.com and also at CensureBush.org where additional action items may be found.]"

- John Conyers

"Void of a major backlash on the part of the American people in response to the deliberate falsification and deceit that has transpired regarding Iraq and the now-debunked case for war, the Libby indictment may prove to be little more than an exercise in damage control. Already senior Republican officials, such as Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, are calling the Libby indictment a mere “technicality.” Right-wing pundits refer to the indictment as the “criminalization of politics,” as if lying one’s way into an illegal war of aggression is somehow akin to politics as usual.

If the American people go along with such blatant attempts at obscuring the reality of the criminal conspiracy that has been committed, then it is perhaps time we finally lay to rest this experiment we call American democracy. At the very minimum, Congress should be compelled into action."

- Scott Ritter
www.digitalnpq.org

It's time to get it done. Let's do it.

We are the people in:

"It is rather for us, the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that, from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here, gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve these dead shall not have died in vain; that the nation, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people by the people for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

- Abraham Lincoln

The Gettysburg Address

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —"

—IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration
of the thirteen united States of America

Our Constitution gives Congress the power of impeachment. We do not need another Revolution or Civil War to cure what ails our government. We just need to elect a new Congress!

Read my post:

The most radical action I can take

Note: March 4th update.

From Christine Smith's website:

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." —Samuel Adams


"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it." —Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Ah yes, Katrina ...

What did the President know and when did he know it?

Again the question of the moment ... and answered already.

If our boy president was forewarned of the possible (probable?) catastrophic damage from "the hurricane bearing down on New Orleans" before the storm hit, why did he go off on those "political" jaunts instead of taking care of buiness? (Do the timeline, folks!)

Because, dear friends and readers, he really is as dumb as we are beginning to realize.

And he has never had to earn a leadership role so he does not have a clue on the responsibility of leadership.

The leader sets the response level. The bottom-level grunts can't kick the mid-level people—those above them and below the President—into gear. That isn't how it works. The tone and attitude comes from the top.

If the President isn't taking something seriously, why should anyone else stick their neck out and become a General Shinseki? Best be a Colin Powell. (If they are looking for a metaphor for their career in government.)

Maybe even a Condi Rice.

Nobody wants to be a Rumsfeld even if it works for you.

Note: March 4th update.

Caught on Tape

Saturday, March 4, 2006

"This Washington Post editorial cuts through the smokescreen of Bush’s Katrina apologists." - truthdig.com

Read Gore Vidal on Bush at truthdig!

Please read

Gore Vidal's

President Jonah (redux)

on truthdig.com.

"War is not a good metaphor for what is happening" - Francis Fukuyama

Read the full interview of Francis Fukuyama, neoconservative intellectual, by Nathan Gardels, editor-in-chief of NPQ (New Perspectives Quarterly), the journal of social and political thought, on HuffingtonPost.com at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-gardels/fukuyama-iraq-shows-ther_b_16532.html

Excerpted:

Fukuyama: War is not a good metaphor for what is happening. It confuses what is a long political struggle with what is conventionally understood as war - a conflict of high intensity declared, fought and won, or lost, in a defined time frame. This struggle is going to percolate along at a relatively low level of activity with spikes of intensity, but its not going to have a clear ending.

By using the war metaphor we get into all kinds of trouble from the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo to wiretapping of our own citizens. People say "we have to suspend civil rights because we are at war." War overstates the intensity of the struggle and the kinds of sacrifices that requires.

Gardels: What policies are effective in this long political struggle against jihadist terrorism?

Fukuyama: In dealing with Islamism and the Middle East we need more of a political strategy and less of a military one. America needs to try to shape the world not by the overt use of military power but by establishing a set of multilateral institutions that then shape long-term incentives for stability, growth and cooperation like, for example, the Bretton Woods institutions created after World War II, or NATO, or the U.S.-Japan security treaty. For 50 years these created an institutional framework for the U.S. and others to shape the world without recourse to military might.

www.truthdig.com

The best news website is www.truthdig.com ... check it out!

This is grrrrrrrrrrrrrreat stuff.

And Molly Ivins' column appears here. I've been following her since I was knee-high to a grasshopper ... or so it seems. Somewhere back in the last century I met her at one of her "lectures" when she visited the University of Washington (U-Dub ... in Seattle) on a book tour.

Here are the Ivins' columns I found on truthdig:

Reports: The GOP Shell Game	With the Bush administration, it’s important to have in mind the old carnival con game: Keep your eye on the shell with the pea under it.	Molly Ivins	02/27/06
Reports: It's the Corporation, Stupid	Regarding the UAE port deal: The people running this country are perfectly willing to outsource American jobs, wages, and health and safety standards for the sake of free trade. Why would it surprise us that national security is ditto?	Molly Ivins	02/22/06
Reports: Abramoff Got Indicted, and All We Got Was This Lousy $20 Gift Ban?	Reform follows scandal as night the day, except in these sorry times, when it appears we may not get a nickel’s worth of reform out of the entire Jack Abramoff saga.	Molly Ivins	02/20/06
Reports: Cheney Shoots a Texas Liberal	Welcome back to the paradoxical Bush/Cheney “responsibility society,” where no one (starting with the administration) takes responsibility.	Molly Ivins	02/13/06
Reports: The Cure for Executive Excess	Can impeachment heal the malady of executive privilege and wiretapping? It has before.	Molly Ivins	02/09/06
Reports: Kicking the Oil Addiction: Bush Lied, Again	Cut imports? Medicare savings? Just kidding! As one White House official confessed, they just fib for your benefit.	Molly Ivins	02/06/06
Reports: Iraq the Disaster, Officially Speaking	I do hope this is responsible criticism that aims for cures, not defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure.	Molly Ivins	02/03/06
Reports: Lying About the State of the Union	As our government renames a civil liberties-trampling spying program and suppresses the results of its own studies, Americans are being left in an information vacuum regarding the true state of our union.	Molly Ivins	01/31/06
Reports: Not Backing Hillary	I’d like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Sen. Clinton for president.	Molly Ivins	01/21/06

Letter to selected US Senators and Governor Corzine of New Jersey

Re: Dubya's dubious Dubai deal (Paul Mulshine, The Star-Ledger)

Dear (selected US Senators and Governor Corzine of New Jersey):

I was born a farm boy up around Duluth, Minnesota, ... and I certainly didn't go to an ivy league university ... but I know the difference between a NATO ally like Great Britain and a country like UAE that doesn't even recognize Israel ... and in the post-9/11 world I would think that is a HUGE distinction in terms of vetting our partners in operations critical to our national security. If it isn't then why do we form alliances like NATO?

And I don't think Chinese-based (or owned) companies should be handling port operations either.

The ONLY possible reason for rubber stamping "Dubya's dubious Dubai deal" (courtesy of Paul Mulshine and the Star-Ledger) is the Bush clique's oil money ties with the dictatorships of the Middle East. The Bushies have sold OUR birthright for porridge for THEM. The only way any of this makes sense is when we realize it is all about the Bushies gaining wealth and power within their loyal group. (It isn't a royal group, yet.)

And what all the well-paid pundits for the wealthy and powerful are trying to counter in the public arena (what do we know about the history of "house slaves?") is that this port deal on top of the illegal immigration crises will give traction to the anti-globalization crowd before the globally connected "oil is money" clique has drained the last ounce of value out of our country for the wealthy of the world. The United States, too, can be a banana republic (did somebody say, "reservation?", or was it "plantation?") in which the people who labor and produce the wealth, no longer gain an equitable share of the wealth they produce.

Times, they are a'changing.

Hilding "Gus" Lindquist

From:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/28/dpworld-boycotts-israel/

BREAKING: Dubai Ports World Boycotts Israel

From this morning’s Jerusalem Post:

The parent company of a Dubai-based firm at the center of a political storm in the US over the purchase of American ports participates in the Arab boycott against Israel, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

The Jerusalem Post notes that “US law bars firms from complying with such requests or cooperating with attempts by Arab governments to boycott Israel.” Once upon a time, opposing such boycotts was important to the Bush Administration. From the BBC, 5/11/02:

“The US government is strongly opposed to restrictive trade practices or boycotts targeted at Israel,” said Undersecretary of Commerce for Industry and Security Kenneth Juster.

“The Commerce Department is closely monitoring efforts that appear to be made to reinvigorate the Arab boycott of Israel and will use all of its resources to vigorously enforce US anti-boycott regulations.”

…The Department of Commerce has issued more than $26m in fines and turned down export licenses to those found violating the law.

The boycott against Israel is an important distinction between P&O, the British company that currently operates 21 U.S. ports, and Dubai Ports World.

Letter to Paul Mulshine, Star-Ledger columnist

Note: Written in response to Paul Mulshine's column in The Star-Ledger, Newark, New Jersey, titled: "Dubya's dubious Dubai deal," Thursday, February 23, 2006.


Whoever is writing headlines for you ... buy 'em a beer!

I read Farmer's and Moran's columns this morning (Friday)--and others in other newspapers ... mostly you are the only one who is getting it!

There is a chain of security that starts when the cargo (the actual "stuff") is assembled for shipping and continues to when it is received for "use" at its final destination. The port operator has an overarching operational understanding of that path ... with the concurrent understanding of the weak AND strong points. AND it actually is in charge of the security of the cargo at least while it is on the receiving dock from the time the longshoreman unload it from the ship to the time when it is hauled off the dock on a truck or train.

Even a little ol' farm boy from Minnesota like me knows that whoever controls access to the cargo AFTER it has cleared custom and the Coast Guard and BEFORE it is delivered to its final destination has a significant role to play in securing the cargo ... how many drug smuggling movies do I have to watch to "get it?"

So the argument that it doesn't matter who is the port management company is bogus on the face of it. This is not the same as saying that the UAE company is a bad company.

It does point up the fact that after almost 4-1/2 years of a us vs. them, good vs. evil, black and white depiction of the war against terrorism, it is a wee bit of a stretch to rubber stamp this deal without something more than a perfunctory review. If Bush (#43) doesn't understand the inherent difference between Great Britain as an ally vs. UAE as an ally vs. South Korea as an Ally vs. China as an ally ... to say nothing of the different nuances in our hemisphere between Chile, Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. ... then Bush ... well, he is as dumb as I think he is. This is not racism or ethnocentrism. It is realism.

And if the Bush Administration doesn't get it ... then their whole anti-terrorism campaign has been rhetorical rather than principled ... and that is what Carolee Adams and other thinking conservatives recognized immediately: this was such a HUGE tear in the weave of the logic that it exposed the falsity of its fabrication.

By the way, does the UAE recognize Israel?

Letter to Thomas L Friedman, NY Times OpEd columnist

Note: Written in response to Friedman's OpEd column, "War of the Worlds", in today's—February 24, 2006—NY Times.

Why do you lie to us? Are you such a house slave of wealth and power that you hold us, the common citizen, in contempt?

The port operator (talk with people who run American Stevedoring Inc—http://www.asiterminals.com/) is in charge of securing the cargo while it is on the dock from the time U.S. longshoremen unload the cargo from the ship onto the dock until it leaves the dock on a truck.

With not more than 5% of the cargo we receive being inspected, the entire chain of control—from point of origin of the cargo itself (before it is even readied for shipping) to the point of delivery—needs to be as tightly controlled as possible. It is a bogus argument to say that things will not change when "things" are so bad in terms of security that they should change, and change—like in "improve"—radically.

Placing ownership of the management contract at the bottom of a list of security problems does not make it "not a problem". It points a powerful light at the list of problems!

By the way, there is no such thing as "free" trade in markets where money is the medium of exchange. There is, however, the simple truth: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

I would think that you would want to be remembered for trying to get at the truth in some objective fashion, rather than the "truth" as the designated conventional wisdom churned out by the holders of wealth and power to quiet the common folk.

Who are the fools?

In a letter to the Editor published in today's NY Times, Professor Christopher Woodruff, Associate Professor of Economics, Director of Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies , at University of California, San Diego wrote:

"Why do drug companies feel so strongly about unfettered markets on the revenue side, when they rely on subsidies on the cost side? Don't we taxpayers, too, deserve some return on our investment?"

Why indeed are corporations with power over markets so loath to pay the costs of earning their revenue? And it isn't just indirect costs they try to avoid. They seek to avoid direct costs as well ... unless we define direct costs as those costs that are paid out of revenues ... and if the corporations can get away with not paying for something, then it becomes an indirect cost ... that is, someone else pays.

If someone dumped sludge in our yard, we would expect them to clean it up. Then why are power plants east of New Jersey allowed to pollute New Jersey's air? ... for example. Who should pay for the damage done in New Jersey by the pollution produced in Pennslyvania or Ohio? Is this a God thing?

There are so many examples of the absurdities inherent in the concept "unfettered markets" that I am left with the observation that either fools are in charge or those who are in charge think the rest of us are fools.

Markets work ... within limits

Don't get me wrong (see Debunking Myth #2: The free market), markets work. It's just that there is no such thing as a "free market" except in some tightly controlled economic arenas. Inside the boundaries of these competitive markets the supply and demand curves work well to set prices as if an Invisible Hand was at play ... like sand passing through a funnel falls into a cone-shaped mound under a fairly wide range of conditions.

But consider for a moment Vice President Cheney calling for allowing free market forces to set the price of oil and determine the vehicles we drive ... while the Republicans pass specific tax breaks for the oil industry ... and the supply and price of oil are set by the oil cartel.

And is there anything MORE regimented than access to the floor of the New York Stock Exchange?

It is the realization that in establishing markets based on money as the medium of exchange, we effectively alter the fundamental nature of the economic landscape with profound immediate effects for those who have to undergo change from whatever ways and means of exchange were in effect previously. When we who would impose the change are not willing to pay the cost of our choice (exercised through power), we create a fundamental distortion in the economic landscape.

And we can begin to see the limitations of money-based markets in which goods and services are exchanged for cash ... all the costs of bringing those goods and services to market are not paid for at the time of purchase ... including the cost of establishing the market.

Money-based markets may be the best we can do, but they are instituted, controlled, and run by human beings. They are not given to us by God. I mean, get a grip, please.

More to follow.

Debunking Myth #2: The free market

There is no such thing as a free market. Get over it. It doesn't exist in the real world.

Think of it like this: The free market of Economists is like using a funnel in a laboratory to pour sand into cones on the top of a lab table ... free of wind and waves and freezing temperatures ... as everyone stands around and oohs and aahs over the Invisible Hand shaping the grains of sand into a perfect cone as they come out of the spout of the funnel.

Try doing it on an Oregon beach in March.

Examples of free market supply and demand curves deal with sales of programs at Super Bowls. The real world has to contend with mothers and fathers sharing porridge with their children.

Going from an local agrarian village culture to a global free market culture has killed a lot of children.

All this so entrepreneurs can predict the optimum amount of grain to deliver to village markets so that the demand allows a profit sufficient to attract farmers to grow the grain, shippers to transport the grain, and retailers to sell the grain, i.e. provide the optimum supply ... to replace the village economy in which the villagers did this for themselves.

Isn't anyone else scratching their head in puzzlement?

Seems like we could have tried to figure out how to do this without killing so many children.

But when someone can get others to pour their sand through a funnel, and charge them a fee ... well, it's easier to control the funnels than it is to control the sand ... and you show people that funnels work ... on still a day, on a quiet beach ... and make it against the law to pour sand without funnels ... "Stay in line there. Don't go wandering around the beach. Get your sand from Funnel A and take it to Funnel B and pour it in. Others will take it from there. Yes, yes, you'll all have an opportunity to get and pour sand if you just follow the rules. No, no, you can't go build sand castles with the Scandinavians. Damn it, now the Bolivians are going over there." .... god, how did we ever get to this point.

I can't help but wonder what's going to happen when the next storm hits the beach ...

It isn't that markets don't work. They do, within limitations. It is just that when those who control and manipulate the limitations for their own benefit and then try to say their are no such limitations that can be controlled or manipulated ... or that such an ideal exists and we need to come as close to the ideal as possible ... when limits—and the need for them—are inherent in the very structure of a money based economy ...

But if you are going to print programs for sale at the Super Bowl and want to maximize your profits ... well, Economists have some useful calculations for you to use. They just don't work very good for feeding a family in Nairobi.

The most radical action I can take ...

The most radical action I can take ... if we define "radical" as meaning "advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs" ... is to act as a citizen representing my interests as a person with inalienable rights, freely embedded and engaged in a community of my own choosing (in other words, a community I could leave if I so chose) ...

This is, in itself, the noblest political action. This is the highest form of public service ... the role of the free citizen. It's downhill from there to the Presidency with fetters, the chains of the expectations of others, steadily restricting a person's sphere of personal freedom. (Note: And freedom is NOT having choices about which pair of jeans to buy or wear.)

My gawd, how far we have strayed from our philosophical roots in ancient Greece as well as in the founding of our own nation.

Debunking Myth #1: The 2-party system

We—here in these United States of America—no more have a 2-party political system than the Tooth Fairy buys infant teeth or the Easter Bunny hides eggs.

We have two major sets (teams) of politicians in contests for political offices and all the spoils that go with these offices—not to serve the public (as in real "servants of the public" for the collective good) but to advance their personal political careers. As soon as a candidate starts believing that the first step in serving the public is to get her/himself elected, the public is no longer served.

What would a real 2-party system look like from my point of view? It would be divided along the lines of the dynamic dialectic inherent in capitalism, between the interests of entrepreneurial ownership on one side and labor on the other. ( Note: I personally believe it is this dynamic dialectic that has produced the great advances in freedom, knowledge, and the standard of living for the average person in societies where the dialectic has been kept in rational equilibrium by an active participatory democracy for all.)

By the way, "dialectic" as used here is simply the the tension or struggle resulting from the opposition between two sides to an issue. The "dynamic dialectic inherent in capitalism" is the tension over how the wealth produced by labor is to be divided between entrepreneurial ownership and labor.

The problem for capitalism is how to keep the dialectic in rational equilibrium. As I wrote in my note, I believe the best means is an active participatory democracy for all.

Some assertions:

1. Simply having the right to vote does NOT define a democracy.

2. Being able to listen to and read "news" is not freedom of speech.

3. If citizens (we, the people) abrogate our active participation in the governance of our community or, in other words, do not interact actively with our neighbors in the political affairs of our community at all levels, then we are not doing our part in preserving democracy by effectively representing our interests. This will in turn upset the rational equilibrium which capitalism needs to avoid falling into monopolism (entrepreneurial owners dictating governing policy) on one hand or communism (workers dictating governing policy) on the other. (Note: I purposely avoid the use of "socialism" because there can be rational public ownership of shared resources agreed to by both interests ... highways, ports, and airports are some resources that I think we can agree are most often best developed under public ownership.)


Addendum: More to follow on this and other myths.

A butterfly flapping my wings ...

Some ground rules:

(1.) I am not interested in starting a movement. I am interested in being a butterfly flapping my wings in China ... whether or not the motion contributes to a hurricane in California.

(2.) I am interested in living a fully engaged creative life, which I believe is the highest good of human existence. The very essence of creativity is the maximizing of choice, having the option to choose to create something that satisfies my sense of awe, my wonderment. The fully engaged creative life is one of choosing what ought to be and then working to make it what is.

(3.) Maximizing of choice in the fully engaged creative life REQUIRES engaging/involving others in the activity. It is IMPOSSIBLE to do it in isolation.

(4.) In order for this engagement of others to "work" MOST effectively, I believe I must allow the others (and actively participate in fostering for the others) to have the same opportunity to live this life as I do ... thereby doing exactly what life does, extend opportunity throughout the gene-pool allowing survival of the fittest.

I do not think we need another "movement". I think we need to apply these ground rules to all movements. The joyful awareness of creatively engaging the cosmos will attract others ... or it won't and which case the potential of humanity as I see it will be lost ... for this epoch.

But to try to organize/impose a system from some type of leadership (Nietzsche's "Will to System") destroys the social environment for maximizing of choice in the fully engaged creative life. The trouble with most patriarchal testosterone driven "king-of-the-hill" paradigms is that they totally destroy Camelot's merry, merry month of May.

Maybe we citizens should simply concentrate on what we do best--like the butterfly flapping its wings--without trying to control the hurricane that results in the chaos of our world. Maybe it is when we don't do our part, that things get out of whack.

Let's all pile on Tim Russert

Seems like it's pile on Tim Russert season. (And get off Oprah.)

Strange anyone should think Tim should be anything but what he is, a talking-head ... as in bobble-head. I've tuned into Meet the Press on NBC Sunday mornings for years ... to see what the latest propaganda coming from the political powerful would be. I'm just a farm boy from up around Duluth, Minnesota, and I knew that Tim treated his guests with soft gloves in order to get them on the show. It's taken others this long to figure THAT out?!

And now everyone is applauding Oprah for beating up on Frey! Well, she waited for the public's smell meter to jump over into the red zone and set off the alarm before she did it. She sure didn't take Frey to task when it was up to her to make the decision all by herself, out there and exposed. No sirree, bob!

From my point of view ... I've shoveled a lot of cow manure in my time ... Tim is being Tim and Oprah's being Oprah. Nothing to get excited about ... unless you actually thought they were thinking heads. In that case we're back to fooling most of the people most of the time. And there is nothing new there either.

Some thoughts written to an emerging friend ...

On friendship:

I don't know if I want friendship with anyone else at any point prior to a friendship "happening". It's kind of something that happens. I NEVER start off with "friendship" as a goal. Mostly I pursue doing things with others who motivate me because I don't do much of anything outside of my "stirring mud puddles" unless there is someone else involved with whom I experience that sense of "wanting to do" something ... out of which friendship sometimes happens, but mostly it doesn't (EXTREMELY rare when it does ... to which I would add, thank god!) ... and I am always surprised when it does. And that's due in great part to my not pursuing friendship except when lo and behold it's there, already happening.

In examining my friendships as a result of this dialog between us, I think I am drawn to those who who make me think more deeply about things I want to think about, and who are able to motivate me to do stuff with them ... "stuff" that is interesting and "worthwhile" to do (in my estimation of these things)... stuff that stimulates my mind. For instance, as to group activity, I don't enjoy dancing. Nor do I enjoy something like building a house for low income families with other like-minded individuals.

These examples—dancing and building houses for low income families—are taken from real life ... my life. People I know and admire enjoy both of these activities. I don't. It used to be that I would try to accommodate their interests, then I learned it is better to find the mutually enjoyable activities and do those things together. But sometimes it is difficult to convince someone that I really don't enjoy (to look forward to or to participate in) some activities ... and that I do enjoy the other person in the mutually compatible activities.


On enlightenment:

No, I don't believe I have achieved "enlightenment" on any other level than my own personal satisfaction with who I am and what I "have". And the very real sense my life has been full and complete ... I don't have ANY "I wish I would have been able to do that's" in my life. And it is because (I think) I made choices that I wanted to make ... and took the consequences, tried to "carry my own water", as Nick Nolte's character said in one of his movies.

I have absolutely no doubt that as long as I continue to live and can retain my ability to reason, I will continue to live this way ... in this sense I will continue to grow and change, because that is living.

On regrets:

Some of my choices have brought pain to others whom I loved and cared about. I do regret that. The alternative--I believe--was to remain imprisoned in the expectations of others. I chose to be free. I don't regret that choice.

On the nature of the cosmos:

I accept chaos theory and the "proof" of the inherent complexity of the cosmos as expressed in fractal mathematics. The flapping of the butterfly's wings does make a difference. But it is not for the butterfly in China to try to control the hurricane in the Caribbean, it is for the butterfly to flap its wings.

Chaos theory and fractals allow me to believe that the cosmos (the totality of what we know and don't know about "what is") has the inherent complexity required to produce life. As we existentialists say, it doesn't matter whether God exists or not. There is enough here to explain what's going on without resorting to God. In fact, if God does exist then we have more philosophical problems (conundrums) to deal with than if he/she doesn't exist.

And in trying to resolve these conundrums stemming from a belief in a God, we tie ourselves in social knots ... when simply being human beings would be so much more satisfying and enjoyable.

Chaos theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

In mathematics and physics, chaos theory deals with the behavior of certain nonlinear dynamic systems that under certain conditions exhibit a phenomenon known as chaos, which is characterized by a sensitivity to initial conditions (see butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, the behavior of systems that exhibit chaos appears to be random, even though the model of the system is deterministic in the sense that it is well defined and contains no random parameters. Examples of such systems include the atmosphere, the solar system, plate tectonics, turbulent fluids, economies, and population growth.

Systems that exhibit mathematical chaos are deterministic and thus orderly in some sense; this technical use of the word chaos is at odds with common parlance, which suggests complete disorder. See the article on mythological chaos for a discussion of the origin of the word in mythology, and other uses. Chaos theory deals with deterministic systems, and a related field of physics called quantum chaos theory studies non-deterministic systems that follow the laws of quantum mechanics.


Butterfly effect
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The butterfly effect is a phrase that encapsulates the more technical notion of sensitive dependence on initial conditions in chaos theory. The idea is that small variations in the initial conditions of a dynamical system produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system. Sensitive dependence is also found in non-dynamical systems: for example, a ball placed at the crest of a hill might roll into any of several valleys depending on slight differences in initial position.

The practical consequence of the butterfly effect is that complex systems such as the weather are difficult to predict past a certain time range - approximately a week, in the case of weather. This is because any finite model that attempts to simulate a system must necessarily truncate some information about the initial conditions—for example, when simulating the weather, one would not be able to include the wind coming from every butterfly's wings. In all practical cases, defects in the knowledge of the initial conditions and deficiencies in the model are equally important sources of error. In a chaotic system, these errors are magnified as the simulation progresses. Thus the predictions of the simulation are useless after a certain finite amount of time.

Edward Lorenz first analyzed the effect in a 1963 paper for the New York Academy of Sciences. According to the paper, "One meteorologist remarked that if the theory were correct, one flap of a seagull's wings could change the course of weather forever." Later speeches and papers by Lorenz used the more poetic butterfly, possibly inspired by the diagram generated by the Lorenz attractor, which looks like a butterfly; other theories propose that the phrase's basis is to be found in fiction (Ray Bradbury's 1952 story "A Sound of Thunder"), but there is no proof available that Lorenz was swayed by literary precedent. The idea is now often stated something to the effect of, “a butterfly flapping its wings in Tokyo could cause tornadoes in California.”

Fractal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A fractal is a geometric object which is rough or irregular on all scales of length, and therefore appears to be 'broken up' in a radical way. Fractals can be most simply defined as images that can be divided into parts, each of which is similar to the original object. Fractals are said to possess infinite detail, and some of them have a self-similar structure that occurs at different scales, or levels of magnification. In many cases, a fractal can be generated by a repeating pattern, in a typically recursive or iterative process. The term fractal was coined in 1975 by Benoît Mandelbrot, from the Latin fractus or "broken". Before Mandelbrot coined his term, the common name for such structures (the Koch snowflake, for example) was monster curve.

Fractals of many kinds were originally studied as mathematical objects. Fractal geometry is the branch of mathematics which studies the properties and behavior of fractals. It describes many situations which cannot be explained easily by classical geometry, and has often been applied in science, technology, and computer-generated art. The conceptual roots of fractals can be traced to attempts to measure the size of objects for which traditional definitions based on Euclidean geometry or calculus fail.

The most characteristic property of fractals is that they are generally irregular (not smooth) in shape, and thus are not objects definable by traditional geometry. That means that fractals tend to have significant detail, visible at any arbitrary scale; when there is self-similarity, this can occur because magnification simply shows similar pictures. Such sets are usually defined instead by recursion.

...

For example, a normal Euclidean shape, such as a circle, looks flatter and flatter as it is magnified. At infinite magnification it would be impossible to tell the difference between the circle and a straight line. Fractals do not exhibit this property. The conventional idea of curvature, which represents the reciprocal of the radius of an approximating circle, cannot usefully apply because it scales away. Instead, with a fractal, increasing the magnification reveals more detail that was previously invisible.

My thoughts:

What I like about chaos theory is the idea of how even the smallest event at the beginning of a chain of events can hugely affect the outcome ... without the "actor" in the beginning event having any real control over the outcome in the sense of "knowing" or "planning" the outcome. The role of the butterfly is to flap its wings, not plan hurricanes in the Caribbean or wind storms in California. Translated into my existence, I do not know the effect my life will have on the cosmos. I simply must be who I am. That is enough for my part in the unfolding cosmos.

What I like about fractals is the coherent complexity at all levels. Life is like that. To me it means that the cosmos has an inherent capacity for the complexity of life. So the question is pushed back to,Where did the cosmos come from? or, has it "always" been? I experience existence as coming out of what was and going into what will be. My awareness of the experience of my existence is my realm of being. I existed prior to my awareness of my existence, and my awareness is formed by my existence ... in any case I am aware of a capacity to choose, and in choosing out of all the choices I can imagine, I choose to create an "isness". In choosing what I will make happen (in choosing the "isness" to be), I choose what "ought" to be ... in the grand old religious ideal of "faith without works is dead".

Ah, yes ... the uncertainites of existence ... fractals, really ... no matter how closely we examine them, they are simply as deep and as rich as they are on the surface. And in chaos, the smallest smile or frown accompanying some part of a glance in some direction ... can cause worlds to rise or collapse. Best we ride the waves--the vicissitudes--of life, safe in the knowledge of who we are ... I am that little farm boy from Northern Minnesota, wandering the forests surrounding the family farm, exploring and discovering, living ... fully aware that I AM all that I can be.

On religions:

Yes, I was made aware of religion as a child. First, I believed Heaven was a real place and Moscow was make-believe. (Heaven was their idea, Moscow was mine.) And that Santa was real ... then it began to dawn on me that adults were telling me things for reasons other than simply telling me the truth. I thought for awhile up into my early teen years that there was a higher truth in all this that I had to discover ... and I went in search of it. The search evolved into an exploration of my awareness of my existence ... with lots of dead ends. I didn't give up, because I believed the search, the personal exploration of my own life through my own awareness of living it, was worth it. Out of which I have accepted a label as a transcendental existentialist (for whenever I am asked if I have one).

Until I took off for Alaska in September of 1995, I was never sure I would be satisfied, that I would be able to live the life that satisfied me, and be able to keep it going. Now, I am sure and I have already done it to the point that if my life ended at this moment I would know--literally know--that I have lived my complete life.

My only concern is that something would happen to me that would cause me to lose my ability to choose, and yet I know that, too, would be part of life ... so I am not "afraid" of that happening.

Subversion of the democratic process ...

The democratic process (which we will have to define more fully) keeps the inherent (or "natural") dialectic of the Capitalist environment—the creative energy devoted to the struggle for the additonal wealth created by labor—in dynamic equilibrium thereby producing the good life for all the participants.

The fear that the democratic process (the masses, as it were) will be subverted and produce a communist or fascist anti-semitic economic/political environment is now being used—ironically—to justify the takover of the democratic process in the United States by the Neocons.

This takeover is destroying the democratic process in the United States. Once agin we are destroying the village to save it. With its destruction will come the loss of the means of maintaining the dynamic equilibrium of the Capitalist environment. This will in turn arouse the reactionary forces of either the right or the left as they see what they consider their just and equitable portion of the additional wealth produced by labor diminishing.

The fear of losing out and the reaction to it will produce the very violent struggle that the Neocons think they are trying to avoid ... except that in the Religious Right component of their world view there is the prophesied climactic struggle of good versus evil in the end times, labeled "The Battle of Armageddon". Because God is on our side, we will win.

Surreptiously, the Neocons say that because they have the power to do so, they will divide the wealth in a manner that will increase their (the Neocons') power. They are the elite because they have the power to be the elite, and having power justifies their actions, a view directly descendent from the view that all authority is ordained by God.

The current existential conflict and angst in the "body politic" comes from the fact that most of us have moved beyond that concept of the source of power, embodied in the divine right of kings, but too many of us still have a good life that we don't want to jeopardize by opposing the growing power of the Neocons. We build our 4,000 square foot single family residences and screw in energy saving light bulbs.

The history of Western Civilization—including that of our nation—is that of growing understanding by individual citizens that wealth is not dispensed by God—either directly or through His agent(s)—and the natural dialectic of who owns the fruits of our labor comes into play. It is easily understood as a natural dialectic because we are hunter-gatherers who bring back to our tribe and family the game and produce resulting from our efforts. When someone tries to take it away from us in the primal land—someone we do not recognize as belonging to our group—we fight them for it. But naturally offer it up for the good of the group to which we belong.

Sooner or later, if the usurping of the democratic process by the Neocons is allowed to continue, it will create the reaction that will turn into a violent struggle ending in the destruction of the world as we know it or the economic and political slavery of the people by the reactionary forces of whoever wins the struggle—the far right or the far left. Then once again we will have to fight our way back to our birthright of inalienable rights ... among which "are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It doesn't have to be like this. But if we are afraid to defend freedom from the encroachments of the Neocons ... selling our birthright for porridge ... we will give up the promised land. Thus it has always been. Liberty mounts the barricades or perishes ignominiously in retreat.

A Living Wage

My basic thesis is that the inherent (or "natural") dialectic over the ownership of the additional wealth created by labor produces the creative energy that in turn produces the good life of the Capitalist environment when it is allowed to be kept in dynamic equilibrium by the democratic process.

Some principles are obviously true according to "our" values. One of these is that persons who work fulltime deserve enough in payment for their labor to sustain a defined minimum quality of life for themselves and their dependents. This is "a living wage".

Most--if not all--of us agree that fulltime work deserves a living wage.

Our areas of contention seem to be over the definitions of "fulltime work", "minimum quality of life", and the number of "dependents" that can be reasonably supported on one living wage.

Beneath the surface of the discussions involved in determining a living wage are the fundamental questions:

Who should be the recipient or "owner" of the wealth created by the labor of the worker?

How do we determine what wealth is created by labor?

Let's pause for a moment and reflect on the importance of this inherent dialectic or creative tension in Capitalism, that of who ought to be the beneficiary (or owner) of the wealth produced by labor.

From my view, the economic struggle is between (1.) the owner of existing wealth, and labor comprised of (2.a.) the worker necessary to produce/maintain the wealth, and (2.b.) the inventor of the new idea to produce a new type of wealth, produce wealth more efficiently, or maintain it more efficiently, for shares of the additional wealth created in the dynamic Capitalist economic environment, which in turn has created the good life of the people (broadly speaking).

Taking this a step further, it seems to me that the main "political" component of the economic struggle is the "conflict" between the owners of existing wealth and labor producing the additional wealth as to how the additional wealth is divided between the parties to the economic struggle.

Following on that idea, we can easily see from history that whenever the balance moves too far away from some "vibrating" equitable equilibrium, the good life of the owners or of labor disappears. Shifting too far to the right, labor's economic and political conditions worsen. Shifting too far to the left, it is the owners' economic and political conditions that worsen.

If the good life for labor disappears in the face of an increasingly better life for the owners of existing wealth--or vice versus for the owners--the tension of the dialectic will also increase.

Equilibrium will be restored either (1.) through the cataclysmic process of reactionary forces responding to the fears of the owners or of labor resulting in a corresponding reaction on the part of the other party producing a violent struggle for political power over the economic environment, or (2.) a democratic process.

Note: The democratic process requires definition. Another point is that the violent struggle can end with the suppression of the "natural" dialectic by overwhelming force such as by the institution of economic and political slavery imposed by the right or the left with the eminent threat of punishment or death for disobedience, thereby obstructing the restoration of equilibrium.

Photos - Temporary

More Thoughts on Fascism

I came across this quote in Robert O. Paxton's THE ANATOMY OF FASCISM:

"Whenever fascist parties acquired power, however, they did nothing to carry out [their] anticapitalist threats. By contrast, they enforced with the utmost violence and thoroughness their threats against socialism. Street fights over turf with young communists were among their most powerful propaganda images. Once in power, fascist regimes banned strikes, dis­solved independent labor unions, lowered wage earners' purchasing power, and showered money on armaments industries, to the immense satisfac­tion of employers."

Fundamental to the establishment of the inalienable rights of all human beings as defined in the Declaration of Independence which marked the beginning of these United States is the separation of powers as defined in our Constitution. In fact, our very real freedom and liberty (when it does exist at the individual level) stems directly from the separation of power in this nation raised to the nth power: between church and state, between branches of government, between political parties, between employees and employers (when unions exist, protecting the rights of workers), between public school and parents in the minds of our children, ad infinitum.

The biggest danger (like in HUGE) from the Straussian Neocons is that by using a centralized loyalty to the Neocon leadership within the framework of the Christian Right (it's all about establishing an elite to rule for the benefit of the masses lest we succumb to some idealogy--ain't that a hoot!), the Neocons eliminate de facto separation of power.

The secularist is bought off with the concept that the pursuit of self-interest ultimately brings the greatest collective good ... with the benchmark for the pursuit of self-interest defined as a mix of personal wealth and power. And as FEMA's Mike Brown and Defense's Don Rumsfeld have shown, loyalty trumps competence in the Neocon scheme of awards.

The religious true-believer is bought off with the Biblical story of Job. God rewards those who stay the course.

The trouble I have with the Left is that they believe that if they get THEIR hands on the controls of the distribution of wealth and power, THEY will create Nirvana for the masses.

At least under Capitalism (not Monopolism), you have the creative tension between the interests of the working class vs. the interests of the owners, expressed in the distribution of profit. One benefit of Capitalism is this creative tension ... at least until we have a 1984 world, or become a banana republic, or descend entirely into fascism.

The very real problem with the atheistic Communist state, is it's failure to sustain the essential characteristic it defines in human history, the dialectic of thesis and antithesis. It is the struggle between what "is" and what we can imagine "ought to be" that defines in our choosing "what we will in turn create for our future" this essential characteristic of being human. We can choose.

Eliminate choice, and we no longer are human beings. Without the separation of power, there is no choice.

Thoughts in the aftermath of the strike by Local 100 of the TWU against the MTA

"The MTA is corrupt." This seems to be the consensus opinion of the pundits.

"New York Governor Pataki has appointed political cronies and shills to the governing board of the MTA." This statement (paraphrased here) is repeated by a wide spectrum of politcal analysts.

Yet the strike was "illegal".

But it was legal for Mayor Bloomberg, a rich white man, (I'm a poor white man) to attempt to give away hundreds of millions of dollars of MTA property value to a wealthy cohort--value that had been created in large part by the efforts of the workers aka members Local 100 of the TWU.

Reminding us of the Civil Rights movement, Local 100 President Roger Toussaint has raised the issue of social justice as a higher calling than the letter of the law, particularly when the Taylor Law is so obviously unjust in allowing public governing bodies to delay settlements, sometimes for years, and then not have to make up all of the back pay.

Some definitions with links:

MTA - Metropolitan Transportation Authority

TWU- Transportation Workers Union - Local 100 - National

Office of the Mayor of New York City

Office of the Governor of New York

Postcard sent to Mayor Bloomberg

December 22, 2005

Dear Mayor Bloomberg:

If you hadn’t tried to “legally” transfer hundreds of millions of dollars of MTA property value to wealthy cohort(s) … maybe this little ol’ farm boy from Northern Minnesota wouldn’t think you are full of manure regarding what you call an “illegal” strike. The wealth you tried to give away was created by the efforts of the working men and women of the TWU.

What is it about rich white men anyway? Do you really think wealth is a measure of some god’s favorable attitude toward you?

Sincerely yours,
Hilding G. Lindquist

An impeachable offense?

President Bush (#43) admits he violated the Fouth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and ordered the NSA to spy on citizens of the United States without any judicial oversight let alone a warrant.

Have you been watching his gyrations and those of his supporters in justifying this action?

Bush, on his own, replaced judicial oversight and instituted warrantless searches of the "papers and effects" of citizens with limited Congressional oversight ... and we now learn that at least one Senator (U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller, Dem-W.VA) raised the issue of their probity with the Executive Branch.

The Constitution for the United States of America

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If this is not clear, what is clearer than this?

The MTA Strike vs. the War in Iraq: a struggle for the attention of New Yorkers

Wednesday, December 14, I went to Carmen at the Metropolitan Opera in New York City, aka The Met—seldom confused in conversation with the other Met, the Metropolitan Museum.

The MTA strike hadn't started yet and the city was alive and aglow with the holiday season festivities. The War in Iraq did not intrude on our consciousness, let alone our activities. The war was not making a difference in the lives of the revelers, as far as I could tell. Whatever disturbance was occurring, was occurring out of sight and out of mind.

Not so with the strike against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) by the Transport Workers Union (TWU), now that it has started. "My god," say the Republican politicians, "the strike is disrupting our lives. We're not safe. People can't get to work. The stores are empty. This is an illegal strike. Fine the union. This is happening to us. It has to end. Now!"

If Iraq weren't so tragic, the irony would be laughable.

Some background to the strike: First, I unabashedly support the unions. The last minute change to the pension contribution, the excess funds accumulated by the MTA, and Mayor Bloomberg's willingness to give hundreds of millions of dollars in MTA property value to wealthy associates create a climate of distrust on the part of the workers who do the work that creates the wealth. There is no good-faith bargaining on the part of the MTA if they hide behind the "no-strike" law to bring the workers to heel.

Then like Bush #43 on 9/11, Bloomberg invokes the decrease in crime in the city in his comments about the need for the union to return to work, as if people don't want to work.

What we need is a living wage ... enough to support a family with children.

What is it that President Bush doesn’t understand?

In CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776,
the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Constitution for the United States of America

Amendment IV:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Gettysburg Address:

… government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.

President Bush's order to spy on citizens of these United States of America is a clear violation of his oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and is in direct opposition to the principles that have made our nation great.

Let's not forget that a big--like in HUGE--reason we were blindsided on 9/11 was the administration's--led by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld--preoccupation with a Stars Wars defense.

You know, it does get a wee bit scarey when this little ol' farm boy from Northern Minnesota can spot the manure pile from a distance, and those standing in the middle of it, can't even detect the odor.

How quickly times flies ...

How quickly time flies when you're old and having fun.

The war in Iraq has a kind of surreal experience for those of us in the United States who are making no real sacrifice in waging it. Yet our President calls on us to persevere, to stay the course until victory is achieved.

Does that mean "continue shopping as usual"?

Whatever ... Bush #43 has a strange way of rallying the nation to the barricades. His call to arms seems to be, "Stay where you are and trust me. Unless, of course, you qualify for enlistment in the Armed Services. Then it's "Come on down, the price is right (cuz you're poor and we'll pay you to fight)".

Then over in Iraq itself, when I learn more about the constitution now in effect, I simply shake my head in bewilderment. Are our leaders delusional?

The following words end the lead editorial, "Iraq's Most Important Election", in the NY Times for Wednesday, December 13:

"A more diverse representation of Shiite political views and a smaller role for the sinister party militias, which are now an important element of the Iraqi Army and police forces, would be welcome developments. That could also make Sunni Arab neighborhoods feel less threatened. Democracy entitles the majority to rule, but not at the expense of everyone else."

Let me repeat that, "Democracy entitles the majority to rule, but not at the expense of everyone else."

Are they kidding us? What kind of sophomoric pabulum are "these people" (are they neocon Zionists in liberal smocks?) trying to feed us?

You don't even have to be a majority in the US ... just have the majority of the votes counted, and the opposition is in trouble. And we are supposedly a "mature" democracy! Think DeLay in Texas ... and the Democrats before the Republicans.

Who is dealing with the reality on the ground over there?

If these are our "intelligentsia" on the "liberal" side ... we are in such deep doo-doo that we might as well start learning Chinese.

Somehow the neocons have forgotten that it is the separation and resulting balance of real political power basically outside our military that makes our nation so strong democratically. It is the VERY real sense that the tables can and do turn in one's own lifetime that keeps the semblance of fairness in government we have. Whenever one power center starts believing it has a lock on political power, corruption spreads faster than an oil slick on a pool of water.

In a patriarchal society people do not give up power and control without a fight. (It may be the same in all societies.) In a democracy we decree that the battle is in the ballot. And what happens then? Look at Florida in 2000. Look at Ohio in 2004. Think "easily manipulated electronic voting machines" ... and we are supposedly a mature democracy, for chrissake.

As long as reason is pulled along by testosterone ... and the males engage in pissing contests ... pissing into the wind always has a predictable outcome.

Cheney Neocons vs the CIA Nincompoops

Underneath the CIA leak story is a monumental battle
of the titans: Cheney Neocons vs the CIA Nincompoops
(aka the underdogs). Quarterbacking the Neocons is
Cheney, a stalwart Neocon Armageddonist with strategic
alliances with powerful people. For the
Nincompoops--now staging a fourth quarter comeback
from what was thought to be certain defeat--is Bush
#41, a global CIA'er and marshalling a roster of what
was thought to have been has-beens.

The personal stuff comes from Cheney and the Neocons
manipulating the kid (aka Bush #43) into doing their
bidding ... and then really, really screwing things up
with the Rumsfled Doctrine: "Stuff happens" ... rather
than following the Colin line: "If you break it, you
own it."

Well, Pappy Bush (#41) ain't gonna take it lying down
... I wouldn't be a bit surprised that he and his
squad are active in the dethroning of Cheney (like in,
"How could Cheney do this to our boy?", asked Babs.
"You go get him, hear. Wring his neck for me.")

This is Greek drama at its best ... the hubris of the
high and mighty ... the titans battling for turf ...
the honor of the annointed scion at stake ...

God, this is the Hatfields and McCoys ... an American
feud ... reality ... live.

Is this gonna make a fantastic Oliver Stone movie or
what?!

(Cheers)

(Fade to black)

(Roll credits)

Harriet Miers? Why Harriet Miers?

Harriet Miers? Why Harriet Miers?

Maybe it's all part of the unraveling of the Plame-gate aka Scooter-gate conspiracy to sell the Iraqi War.

Bush wants someone on the Supreme Court who actually knows what went on in the White House and that he, Bush, really was in a bubble, and really, really did believe the stuff fed to him by the Cheney-Neocon cabal about WMD in Iraq during the lead-up to the war.

It would all go back to Neocon’s recognizing early on that the Bush-Rove dynamic duo was the perfect political engine to pull the Neocon vehicle to the pinnacle of power.

Rove would do anything to get Bush elected, and Bush would simply accept it as his due … from God, no less. There would be no introspective soul-searching. Bush knew he was chosen by God. Rove was focused on getting Bush elected to the presidency ... twice.

There was nothing strange in this to tip Bush off, to tweak his curiosity, to set off an alarm. This was the way life always turned out for him. Success happened to him personally … no matter what.

Well, Rove has it figured it out. He and Bush have been had by Scooter and Cheney. And Scooter’s involving him, Rove, in the outing of Valerie Plame is now--with Fitzgerald untangling the threads, connecting the dots--threatening to pull the rug out from under the whole shebang.

Having figured out that he was purposely made the fall guy to protect Scooter and Cheney’s butts … or at least to make sure the White House stayed on message … or simply because they were too arrogant to think it through … Rove is now coming clean to the grand jury.

But he has the problem that he didn’t come clean at first.

However, his “indiscretion” in pointing out Valerie Plame to Mathew Cooper by mentioning the wife of Joseph Wilson is small potatoes compared to the conspiracy to lie us into war using Bush #43 earnest cheerleading talents.

Rove, of course, has explained all this to Bush.

Voilà! Bush nominates Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court as a backup plan for pulling his chestnuts out of the Neocon fire.

Make any sense? I think it does.

There is no undoing of it

Thoughts on our War in Iraq:

It is hard to believe
this is happening
at the behest of my country.

Like the good Germans
who swept the ashes
from their window sills
that had fallen overnight
from the crematoriums

We go about our lives
as if it isn't happening.

To our eternal shame.

It has been done.
It is being done.
It will be done.

There is no undoing of it.

Ever.

In the face of fear, have we lost our reason?

The Neocons following the precepts of Leo Strauss were and are into using the power they have to gain more power. It is their willingness to use power to pursue personal authority and the control of ever growing power that is so frightening.

They are steadily and methodically working their way up to a rationale of rattling our nuclear arsenal to establish imperial dominance. Even the strategy of limits on the use of force in Iraq at the current time fits their overall plan. If the people of Iraq accept our cultural dominence voluntarily, so be it. If not, continue the march to Armageddon.

It is to our everlasting shame as a people that we got sucked into this war and continue wreaking this much death and destruction on another people, without being willing to make any sacrifice other than that of our volunteer military whom we have never properly supported in numbers or resources or anything that would remotely signal our understanding of the price others are paying in our name ... win or lose. We are going about our lives as if nothing is happening in Iraq.

We get excited when tsunamis, hurricanes, and earthquakes devastate areas where people live ... and we respond proportionately, or at least try to do so. Why don't we pay closer attention when a war we are waging devastates an area where people live ... for now coming up on three years?

The rhetoric and policies of the Neocons are clearly imperialistic ... for example, the space shield is a non-starter as a shield, but an immense potential success as a weapons system. Another example is the now repeated call to militarize relief efforts.

At the first warning of terrorism, we hurriedly comply with the commands of the authorities. And again ... and again ... and again ... like white mice in the laboratory. How much of a shock will we withstand to get the cheese?

Is it really true that in the face of fear we have lost our reason?