November 05, 2004 :::
 
DROP BOMBS, NOT BUSH

In September, a cashier at a Safeway store noticed this writer’s political buttons pinned to a cloth shopping bag. The cashier was proudly wearing a Kerry campaign button, but she said she had to take off her "Drop Bush, Not Bombs" button because some people thought the message was too much of an assault for some customers/co-workers. Now, days after the election, the Bush army is heavily bombing Fallujah in an attempt to eliminate any opposition that might interfere with a second election victory for the Republican Party.

There are other post-election items to note, including some insights to pre-election comments:

* This writer finally understands what Rudy Giuliani meant when he said he stood by George Bush because Bush stood by him. When Giuliani first ran for mayor of New York City, he cut across party lines to pull in and to give endorsements to Democratic candidates, not just to the Republican Party’s choices. This resulted in a cold shoulder given to Giuliani from Republican New York Gov. George Pataki and other powerfully-positioned Republican politicians. For Giuliani, Bush’s standing beside him at 9/11 events was a symbolic and literal coming out of the political cold for Giuliani.

* Republican victors, and some Democratic foxes in sheep’s clothing, claim the parties need to work together and heal the wounds of the election. This is not a new concept. It is called COMPROMISE, except no one uses that word. Instead, unite means the Democratic Party should put on a veil and stay indoors, unless accompanied by a Republican and that Democrats should speak only when given permission to do so by Republicans.

* Jobs grew from the destruction of several hurricanes. Similarly, jobs and economic figures grew from the money poured into campaigns across the country. The true danger to workers of the Bush re-election will come now that election money is not being spent, young people who put their careers on hold to work in campaigns join or re-join the masses already looking for decent-paying jobs, and more jobs and American wages are sent out of the United States.

* Where were all the terrorist dangers that were feared to happen on November 2? Are Americans really to believe that the extra money spent to buy military-grade weapons and to send SWAT teams through public transportation systems, as well as other places where large groups of people as part of their daily lives, were not a waste of money? Was there any read indication of need for such costs and actions, or was the display of force merely a reminder that George Bush was the ruler and we better re-elect him if we didn’t want a dictatorship?

*Bush did not win the election so much as John Kerry lost it. There are many examples of why this is so. One was the effort made by Republicans to get out the vote, as one post-election commentator noted on a radio program. Democrats made a major effort to register people for the vote, but too many, way too many, Democrats and left-leaning independents could not justify voting for Kerry. Instead, they worked to dissuade people from voting for Bush and hoped enough other people who could vote for Kerry would do so.

*The youth vote and its expected impact on the election outcome was overrated, again. As one person calling into a regional radio talk show noted, Kerry supporters made the effort to register young people as voters, but made little to no effort to hear what the young people wanted or to address those issues.

*If the election had been held shortly after the first presidential debate, Kerry might have won. The difference between an engaged, aware, knowledgeable Kerry and an irritated, nervous, and ill-prepared Bush was noticeable at that time, but by the third debate both candidates were monotonous and appeared equally bland. One commentator noted on a national news show that if Kerry lost the election it would be because he mentioned the Cheney daughter in the third election. Indeed, throughout the entire last week of the campaign, the sound bites National Public Radio played of Kerry’s speeches were full of references to Christopher Reeve and other Hollywood names. This just added to Kerry’s personae of being a person ignorant of the daily lives and struggles of most Americans.

*Long before the campaign drew to a close, this writer knew that Kerry was in trouble. Data on visitors to the maggiefeld.com website showed that people primarily wanted to look at campaign merchandise to see how Bush was slammed. The issues boards were generally ignored. Yet, people supporting Bush were doing so primarily on an emotional connection and because he already was president. For Kerry to have won, those Bush supporters needed to have the emotional attachments severed and be met with enough force of data or news coverage to counter the energy of an object already in motion. Just telling people Bush needed to be removed from office and that they needed to vote for John Kerry was not enough to make Americans drop Bush before he could drop more bombs.

# # #


::: posted by Maggie at 5:32 PM


 
DROP BOMBS, NOT BUSH

In September, a cashier at a Safeway store noticed this writer’s political buttons pinned to a cloth shopping bag. The cashier was proudly wearing a Kerry campaign button, but she said she had to take off her "Drop Bush, Not Bombs" button because some people thought the message was too much of an assault for some customers/co-workers. Now, days after the election, the Bush army is heavily bombing Fallujah in an attempt to eliminate any opposition that might interfere with a second election victory for the Republican Party.

There are other post-election items to note, including some insights to pre-election comments:
* This writer finally understands what Rudy Giuliani meant when he said he stood by George Bush because Bush stood by him. When Giuliani first ran for mayor of New York City, he cut across party lines to pull in and to give endorsements to Democratic candidates, not just to the Republican Party’s choices. This resulted in a cold shoulder given to Giuliani from Republican New York Gov. George Pataki and other powerfully-positioned Republican politicians. For Giuliani, Bush’s standing beside him at 9/11 events was a symbolic and literal coming out of the political cold for Giuliani.

* Republican victors, and some Democratic foxes in sheep’s clothing, claim the parties need to work together and heal the wounds of the election. This is not a new concept. It is called COMPROMISE, except no one uses that word. Instead, unite means the Democratic Party should put on a veil and stay indoors, unless accompanied by a Republican and that Democrats should speak only when given permission to do so by Republicans.

* Jobs grew from the destruction of several hurricanes. Similarly, jobs and economic figures grew from the money poured into campaigns across the country. The true danger to workers of the Bush re-election will come now that election money is not being spent, young people who put their careers on hold to work in campaigns join or re-join the masses already looking for decent-paying jobs, and more jobs and American wages are sent out of the United States.

* Where were all the terrorist dangers that were feared to happen on November 2? Are Americans really to believe that the extra money spent to buy military-grade weapons and to send SWAT teams through public transportation systems, as well as other places where large groups of people as part of their daily lives, were not a waste of money? Was there any read indication of need for such costs and actions, or was the display of force merely a reminder that George Bush was the ruler and we better re-elect him if we didn’t want a dictatorship?

*Bush did not win the election so much as John Kerry lost it. There are many examples of why this is so. One was the effort made by Republicans to get out the vote, as one post-election commentator noted on a radio program. Democrats made a major effort to register people for the vote, but too many, way too many, Democrats and left-leaning independents could not justify voting for Kerry. Instead, they worked to dissuade people from voting for Bush and hoped enough other people who could vote for Kerry would do so.

*The youth vote and its expected impact on the election outcome was overrated, again. As one person calling into a regional radio talk show noted, Kerry supporters made the effort to register young people as voters, but made little to no effort to hear what the young people wanted or to address those issues.

*If the election had been held shortly after the first presidential debate, Kerry might have won. The difference between an engaged, aware, knowledgeable Kerry and an irritated, nervous, and ill-prepared Bush was noticeable at that time, but by the third debate both candidates were monotonous and appeared equally bland. One commentator noted on a national news show that if Kerry lost the election it would be because he mentioned the Cheney daughter in the third election. Indeed, throughout the entire last week of the campaign, the sound bites National Public Radio played of Kerry’s speeches were full of references to Christopher Reeve and other Hollywood names. This just added to Kerry’s personae of being a person ignorant of the daily lives and struggles of most Americans.

*Long before the campaign drew to a close, this writer knew that Kerry was in trouble. Data on visitors to the maggiefeld.com website showed that people primarily wanted to look at campaign merchandise to see how Bush was slammed. The issues boards were generally ignored. Yet, people supporting Bush were doing so primarily on an emotional connection and because he already was president. For Kerry to have won, those Bush supporters needed to have the emotional attachments severed and be met with enough force of data or news coverage to counter the energy of an object already in motion. Just telling people Bush needed to be removed from office and that they needed to vote for John Kerry was not enough to make Americans drop Bush before he could drop more bombs.

# # #


::: posted by Maggie at 5:29 PM



November 04, 2004 :::
 
I TOLD YOU SO

Now is the time to say, "I told you so." Unfortunately, the Democrats will be falling all over themselves trying to make excuses about Iraq instead of about their poor campaigning; their ignoring of women; their myopic focus on people making $200,000 a year, instead of $20,000; and, their numerous other abdications of representation of the American public. Maybe next time the Democratic leadership, and the voters in early primary states, will learn to listen to the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

NEXT BLOG

This Election 2004 blog may continue through Inauguration Day, or it might not. When it does end, there will be a new blog discussing urban America. The topics of that blog may include the issues of sprawl, centralized high-paying jobs and the transportation gridlock they cause, water resources, pollution, governance, taxation, cultural similarities and differences between cities, benefits and minuses of living in cities versus rural areas, and any item that is intensified by the close proximity of humans. The new Urban America blog probably will be posted on the www.maggiefeld.com website, since blogger.com, as a result of being bought by Google, has become graphic heavy and considerably less user-friendly for people who do not believe more bandwidth is the most wonderful thing in the world and the highest financial priority in their lives.

# # #


::: posted by Maggie at 4:26 AM



November 02, 2004 :::
 
VOTING IS ONLY THE BEGINNING

In the George W. Bush administration, public outrage halted, alas, sometimes only temporarily, poor governmental decisions regarding mercury pollution, organic foods, and airwave ownership. That happened because the public spoke out.

In the Democratic Party's primary contest for the presidential nomination, John Forbes Kerry found himself defending his nuanced voting record, a record that appears to indicate flip-flopping if the title of the bills voted upon is all that is considered, because the voices of the people finally breached the wall of Congress. That took an election (for House Minority Leader) to happen, but it was the voices of party members that kept the issue alive.

In the current climate of antagonism towards the position in which Bush has placed America and Americans, many citizens are screaming for anybody to replace Bush in the Oval Office. The danger lies in that many of those citizens are neglecting to voice their own concerns and issues beyond the need to kick Bush out of office. There is time to correct the quietness, but only if Americans remember their voices need to be heard even after the election.

DID THE SUPREME COURT CAUSE MORE HARM THAN GOOD?

In 2000, the Supreme Court justices issued a memorandum of law that gave George W. Bush the presidency. The argument cited was that the act was needed to preserve the Constitution of the United States. Now, with fears of voters being systematically challenged and with news coverage threatening a massive challenge of vote results in many states, does history show the Supreme Court justices to be short-sighted? If the Florida vote had been recounted (and if Al Gore had not been such a flip-flopper), there might be far more trust in election systems and in the vote today. Heck, at least we wouldn't have George W. Bush and Company terrorizing Americans from the White House.

# # #


::: posted by Maggie at 5:40 AM



October 30, 2004 :::
 
NOTES FROM THE WEEK’S NEWS AND TALK SHOWS

* If George W. Bush cannot run a military that is capable of keeping explosives guarded and safe, how is he going to be able to keep Americans safe?

* When John Kerry talks about wiping out the enemy, has he forgotten the groundswell of support for Howard Dean by Americans who believe violence only leads to more violence?

* Bush claims he is a leader. This writer concedes that Bush is a leader. However, that does not mean Kerry is not a leader. Moreover, being a leader in itself is not a reason to vote for a candidate in this particular election. (There are times when total lack of leadership drives the electorate into a frenzy for anybody who will take a stand and act, such as after a few years of Gerald Ford.) The question in this presidential election is if people prefer the core leadership value of George Bush, i.e., that God is on his side, even if it leads the nation into damnation, or if the people prefer the laissez-faire leadership value of John Kerry, i.e., fights should be fair and no particular side is divinely right, even if it doesn’t pull the country out of purgatory?

* When the Help America Vote Act was passed, New York’s senators, Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton, were the two senators who voted against it for the requirement it carried that newly-registered voters must show identification. (This requirement was added during conference committee and was not part of the original language of either chamber’s legislation.) According to people quoted in a New York Times article at the time of the Act’s passage, the New York Senators were ridiculed for caving in to the Latino constituency. Now, in the past several days, columnists, professors, activists, and lawyers seem to have suddenly realized that the identification requirement is discriminatory for lower-income and younger voters, people who may move frequently. At least one commentator acknowledged that even older people who may move frequently for their career or other work are impacted by the requirement.

# # #


::: posted by Maggie at 7:11 AM



October 28, 2004 :::
 
WHY THE ELECTION DOES NOT MATTER

On National Public Radio's "Morning Edition" today, there were two commentaries, each noting that the Democratic Party's ideals are those of academic liberals. This is an observation noted previously by this writer. The commentators disagreed on whether the Republican Party reflected the ideals of the average American, but either way, the examples given by the person representing the right-wing of the debate noted issues that demonstrated the Republican academics were just as out of touch with the struggle of Americans as are the Democratic academics.

This election does matter in that there are large-scale issues set by the federal government, and even state and local government, that have consequences for how we live our lives from year to year. Nevertheless, many other factors influence how we live our lives from day to day. On these issues, such as the accessibility of sidewalks, the centralization of high-paying jobs and sprawl of affordable housing, and the support of hometown businesses, the Republican and the Democratic, even the Green and Liberterian, parties have worked to make life much more difficult for most Americans on a daily basis.

OCTOBER SURPRISE?

The Red Sox won the World Series! Could this be the push John Forbes Kerry needs to sweep into the White House? At the least, the come-from-behind and hunger for winning exhibited by the 2004 Red Sox team is something with which Americans can find a connection. Sadly, too many Americans are still searching for that down-to-earth connection with Kerry.

# # #


::: posted by Maggie at 5:31 AM



October 26, 2004 :::
 
MILITARY HILLARITY

The man who does not campaign well (i.e., John Kerry) tries to rally the youngest voters by suggesting George W. Bush would bring back the military draft. The man who does not speak well (i.e., Bush) counters with the claim that under his administration there will only be an all-volunteer military. Neither man is being straight with the American people.

It is not improbable that a draft would begin anew, especially if the world power structure is met with a significant aftershock to the giant geopolitical quake that George W. Bush set off. This return to a military draft would be needed regardless of who sat in the Oval Office, because the United States has not yet ceded its position as the most powerful army on Earth.

Trying to keep the draft from becoming a political noose, while still maintaining some semblance of troop normality in Iraq and other battle zones, the military has stopped having an all-volunteer army. When a member of the armed forces is told either to re-enlist or to be sent back to a war zone for unlimited duration beyond the term of his or her current enlistment, it is incorrect to claim an all-volunteer military.

STRONG WOMEN

Bob Schieffer commented on a local public radio station that he felt his question during the third presidential debate about strong women was good. He went on to say that he thought the candidates finally had to give unscripted answers to a question. It surprised him why so many women thought the question was wrong. (There are many women who think the question was good, however.)

Why did the candidates answer the question with comments about their wives and, in Bush’s case, his mother? What about the strong women working on the campaigns who are not related to the candidates? What about Karen Hughes and former New Hampshire Governor Jeanne Shaneen?

Why was the question not about the type of people with whom the candidates surround themselves in general? That would have been much more relevant to how they would run the country.

# # #


::: posted by Maggie at 9:49 AM



October 25, 2004 :::
 
THE GAP WIDENS

As the November 2 election draws nearer and as the tension increases for candidates, their staffs, and their legions of volunteers and supporters, this writer finds herself growing more distant from the electoral process. The excitement and air of hope that seeped in during the second half of 2003 and the first few weeks of 2004, when the possibility of real change could be found within some of the Democratic candidates for president, dissipated long ago. Now, with each verbal gaffe from John Kerry and John Edwards and with each outlandish policy statement issued, this writer becomes more depressed at the future of America.

Commentators have opined that undecided voters should focus on just one issue and cast their vote on which candidate they support on that matter. For this writer, the question was not for which candidate she would vote, but if she would vote for Kerry or not vote at all. When Edwards stated in the vice presidential debate that Kerry would be sure to kill enemies of America before they could kill Americans, the decision was made. The idea may be appealing to the newly named security moms, but when the enemies of America are recruiting soldiers by saying they need to kill Americans before Americans kill them, it is irresponsible for a presidential candidate promising greater safety to add fuel to the fires.

As for the other issues, the scale kept tipping on matters of economics and of personal and civil liberties. Listening to Kerry's speeches, or soundbites of those speeches, while trying to grow a small business and while still trying to have a job to help fund the business, while trying to relocate for better economic opportunities, and while trying to find living arrangements that permitted time to have a life without a car or expensive commute, this writer has found herself discovering an ever-widening gap between what Kerry is saying and what her immediate and long-range needs are.

The biggest concern comes, though, from past experiences and history. So many people are pouring so much of their time, money, and energy into pushing for their favored candidate to be elected, or just to persuade people to vote, yet so few people are thinking about what is required of all those people after the elections. Voting is just the first step of democracy. Knowing the issues, heck, deciding the issues, and offering opinions on them to elected officials and other citizens is just as important as voting. Worse, so many people are saying they will vote for Kerry instead of George W. Bush merely because they cannot stand the idea of another four years of Bush, not because they think Kerry will be a good president. What do these people intend to do if Kerry does win? Will they spend their time and their money to push for the policies and the laws they believe are important, or will they merely fade into the woodwork shaking their heads at the direction the president would take the country?

Vote, but do not disappear.

# # #


::: posted by Maggie at 3:30 PM



October 16, 2004 :::
 
THE FINISH LINE

One argument several people have given for leaning towards a vote for George Bush is that he should be allowed to finish what he started. Just what is it that these people think Bush started? Is the Patriot Act supposed to have a sequel? Are Syria and Iran to be invaded? Is the American treasury supposed to go so far into debt that the country defaults on its debt?

# # #


::: posted by Maggie at 6:56 AM



October 05, 2004 :::
 
GWEN IFFEL WINS THE DEBATE

It was fun to watch the vice presidential debate with a group of college students at the University of California's Berkeley campus, even if there was nothing particularly outstanding about their comments or observations. One person in a post-debate discussion did note what this writer thought, i.e., that Gwen Iffel was way better than Jim Lehrer.

Sadly, Jim Lehrer has failed to deliver during this presidential campaign cycle. He is stuck on Iraq, which is worth considerable time, but there is more to the world and more to the challenges of the next four years than Iraq. Iffel had considerably more leeway than Lehrer in choosing her questions, however, since the debate hosted by Lehrer was limited to foreign policy. Nevertheless, Iffel's question about African-American women with AIDS in the United States highlighted, yet again, why it is important for everyone to be involved in asking questions. Sadly, John Edwards avoided the question and Dick Cheney, while admitting he had not known the fact, admitted that he was ill-informed about the consequences faced by different groups of Americans.

The vice presidential debate was tough, and all three people on the stage were worn down by the process. Those three deserve a round of applause, though, for reminding us about how exciting and entertaining politics can be.

As for last week's presidential debate, that was watched by this writer while eating dinner with a friend who kept pointing out George Bush's facial expressions. It is a dangerous condition that Bush's answers would send the listener into a trance, only to awake and wonder what was said. (This has been a problem throughout the past four years.) John Kerry certainly demonstrated his better grasp of leadership and responsibility to be competent than did Bush. With the questions and the answers of the debate merely seeming to be repeats of questions and responses given many times over the past several months, the debate seemed to be lost by the American people, who were given little knew information with which to make a decision for the ballot.

Some items in the vice presidential debate raised concerns about the entire election. Edwards mentioned a couple times that a Kerry administration would be sure to kill people to save Americans, while the Bush administration has repeatedly demonstrated its disdain for the lives of non-Americans. Is it really good for this country, or for the world, that the presidential election of the most powerful military force in the world is teetering on which candidate can be counted on to be the quickest to kill other people?

The Kerry/Edwards plan for reducing trials also is of concern. The idea Edwards presented was that a group of lawyers would review another lawyer's opinion of his or her client's case options. If it sounds similar to a physician at an HMO reviewing the medical records of a doctor and his or her patient, it is. Just as dangerous medical conditions may be suspected, but not readily suggested under normal protocols, valid lawsuits may hinge on a document that is denied to exist, but which appears during legal discovery. Kerry gave an example of a $0.02 screw that would have saved lives, but did he know that was the defect that resulted in a lawsuit before the case was filed?

Cheney's example of medical malpractice insurance premiums was just as appalling. Several years ago, insurance companies in New Jersey left the state because the state said the companies had to insure everyone, not just the healthy people. (In other states, the non-profict Blue Shield/Blue Cross companies often ended up receiving considerable public money to insure the individuals at highest risk for requiring medical treatment.) A doctor saying she cannot treat the highest risk pregnancies because of high malpractice insurnace premiums is merely another version of the question of who will make sure the illest Americans receive medical insurance?

# # #




::: posted by Maggie at 10:19 PM



September 21, 2004 :::
 

NOTES FROM CALIFORNIA

Cat sitting for a friend, this writer wonders at the complexity of felines. With one cat loving to sit in a warm lap after breakfast for hours at a time and the other cat preferring to lay on a bed after dinner while being petted for hours on end, they seem to be little more than amebas following heat and food and nothing more. However, they could also be viewed as similar to presidential candidates. They know how to ask for food, demand their needs be met, crave attention, and are directed by the people who provide their funding, ego stroking, and publicity.

Visiting the How Berkeley Can You Be? event on September 19 was more depressing than inspiring. With the theme of this year’s event being tied to International Car Free day, the vendor booths and parade entrants seemed to be less than they could be. Cars and buses were featured both in the parade and in the news coverage afterwards. Yes, the cars were highly decorated, bedecked with sparkling jewels, heavily coated with paint, and armored with metal sculptures, yet they were still cars. At least when Minneapolis, Minnesota, holds its annual vehicle parade, decorated bicycles are included.

Several vendors were quietly offering anti-Bush campaign items for sell. The most hawkish vendor was pushing a Pinocchio-inspired plastic blow-up doll of Bush, made in China. Indeed, the best button was one a clerk showed me at a supermarket where this writer stopped upon returning from the Berkeley event: "Drop Bush/Not Bombs." The clerk was wearing a Kerry-Edwards campaign button and noticed the Maggie Feld Productions buttons festooning a cloth bag into which groceries were being placed. The clerk said that she took off the "Drop Bush/Not Bombs" button while working because some people thought it too outspoken.
One thing that California does not have that existed seemingly everywhere in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is campaign advertisements for the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates. Considering that television markets in Pittsburgh reach into Ohio, the campaigns could promote themselves (or demote their opponents) in two closely-polling states for the price of one.

School board contests in California seem to be no different than those anywhere else. They consist of very local candidates in widely-reported contests that attract few voters. A forum featuring the seven candidates vying for three seats on the board of the San Lorenzo Unified School District revealed very little of substance, but there were a few differences between candidates on the issues. Primarily, the candidates were running based on their own experience as employees of school districts or as parents interested in their own children’s priorities. A concern raised in the forum was how much knowledge the candidates had of the school board, including attending meetings. Some of the candidates had attended only a few, if any, meetings prior to becoming candidates, but how important is that? The bigger problem appeared to be that certain candidates were more project-oriented than they would need to be sitting on a policy board. (This was a problem that Minneapolis encountered when it elected Sharon Sayles Belton as mayor. Her first term was a project to clean up the crime-busy streets of the city, but when that was accomplished she proved incapable of acting as a general-purpose executive.)

In Berkeley, literature for two school board candidates, advertising together as the only two candidates with names that begin with "K," noted that the office seekers favored a uniform academic standard. Many parents in other locations, however, have fought to have their children assessed as mentally impaired so that they could have a custom-made academic standard. This issue goes to the heart of the concept of George W. Bush’s education agenda, supported by schools who have eyes for the federal money they would receive by complying with nationally-set policies. However, people are not the same. They do not learn at the same rates. They do not enjoy the same topics. They do not have inherent talent in the same areas.

There is a presidential contest this year, and it is important who wins the presidency. The biggest problem we face as a country, though, are local citizens and local elected officials who have been told not to think for themselves. The federal government gives out money. Representatives to the U.S. Congress are expected to bring back money back to their states and are judged by the amount they can legislature homeward. State representatives agree to federal rules in order to fund pet projects. Local officials keep their financial backers happy; the funders, in turn, look primarily at their own pocketbooks. Voters go about their lives, accepting what is given to them, protesting when something they don’t like is in their backyards, and seemingly otherwise griping and complaining but not equating the conditions in their communities with similar situations faced by millions of other Americans, all because a few people at the federal level are deciding how Americans will live.

# # #

::: posted by Maggie at 10:29 AM



September 07, 2004 :::
 
IS THERE AN ELECTION?

The Republican National Convention was largely a non-event for this writer. This was the first national political convention that was not observed in many election cycles. A columnist in a western Montana alternative newspaper also turned off the convention; he wrote that after the tenth or eleventh reference to September 11, 2001, he grew tired of hearing about things that were, and nothing about things that are, such as lack of jobs, income, and healthcare. It was similar meaningless babble that did not make the convention seem a must-see.

The process of relocating home and office also interfered with observing the Republican convention. Moving from place to place, finding new jobs and exploring new cultures or geopolitical idiosyncracies used to be fun and enjoyable. Alas, as legislation and bureaucratic ass covering have expanded to make everyone who is not a local appear guilty, the paper work and time required to move has made the experiences far less enjoyable. Ted Rall captured part of the concern about excessive restrictions when he noted in an alernative-weekly article that global trade can never truly be free as long as there exist restrictions on the movement of workers. With moving from Shrevesport, Louisiana to Redwood, California, becoming as bothersome and paper-ridden as moving from Nashville, Tennessee to New Delhi, India, American workers within the United States are faced with giving up their cultural identities and personal histories just so they can follow jobs across the country.

# # #


::: posted by Maggie at 11:45 AM



August 21, 2004 :::
 
MORE OF THE SAME

It has been three weeks since the last blog essay was posted here. Why? Week 1: Out of town business trip and related tasks. Week 2: Illness. Week 3: Long office hours and a sense of futility. Trying to find motivation to keep writing is difficult, especially when it becomes difficult just to access news programs or publications. Exploring an idea, researching the issue, organizing the facts and arguments into a logical essay, and putting words to computer is too much for this entry. Instead, here is another entry of line item comments:

* What does it say for the future of America when so many young Americans respond to inquiries or comments about conditions in stores or other places of business by saying, "I don’t know. I’m just trying to pay for college."? When they are forty-years-old will they tune out political debates because just trying to pay for the house and the car?

* Did the family members or servants who had to make candles, once the process for so doing was created and promoted as a basic standard of living, complain that it was just extra work they had to do, for no extra compensation? With much time wasted dealing with the extensive steps necessary to keep computers cleared out so they operate properly, download virus software and other basic items that all need to be set up and reviewed, and delete the electronic equivalent of scribbled notes, the advancement of technology seems much more like a drain of time than a release of burden.

* What does (did) John Kerry mean when he says he doesn’t mind billionaires, and that such a level of wealth is an acceptable goal? Is it possible for anyone to amass a billion dollars, even half a billion dollars, without hurting someone else? From the worker who is underpaid so the owner can take a larger profit to the small vendor who has to squeak by with a very thin operating margin so a bonus can be paid to a senior executive at a corporation to the low- and moderate-income tax payers who have to contribute more of their paychecks to support operations of a government because of tax breaks given to shareholders of large corporations, someone has to give in order for the billionaire to emerge.

* This writer has noted several times over the past four years that George W. Bush as president means the end of the United States’ hold on global politics. In a National Public Radio newscast segment a few weeks ago, a European commentator noted that if John Kerry wins the presidential election, the break with Europe that started with Bush will only slow down. Europe has learned it can stand apart from the U.S. and thrive.

* John Kerry also continues to fail to see that the old ways of life still have some value. For example, Kerry, like Bush, wants to invest in research for energy alternatives, but he ignores the simple and proven path of building sidewalks, which will allow people who want to walk instead of driving the option not to use foreign oil.

* Stop talking about swift boats and Vietnam. It is a distraction from the current issues facing American society. Moreover, just as Porter Goss’s service in the CIA in the early 1960's does not justify nominating him as CIA director, given how much the world and the intelligence bureaucracy has changed in almost half a century, what Kerry and Bush did or did not do during the Vietnam War has little relevance for America in the 21st Century.

* Where is the next Google? In the year leading up to its recent IPO, the company’s products became cluttered with the same types of useless gadgets and services that drove so many people from the services that Google originally replaced. Blogspot, for example, once an easily-accessible service program became harder to access, took longer to load, and has been more unsteady since bought by Google and "improved." Give me richness of content but simplicity of access. Instead, the American consumer is being given cluttered access and empty contents.

* Businesses continue to be concerned about the bottom line and workers continue to be asked to do more for less pay. There are still pockets of financial security, but even then the stress of individuals is high. Don’t worry, though. We can still afford to buy oil and coal, pollute our air and water, and act as though all that matters is having everyone else give up their cars and wasteful ways.

# # #


::: posted by Maggie at 5:58 PM



August 01, 2004 :::
 
CONVENTION SUMMARY

Political commentators opined that delegates to the Democratic National Convention (DNC) were more liberal than other Democrats. Indeed, with David Brooks saying 95% of the Democratic delegates were against the war on PBS’s coverage of the convention and George Will giving the same percentage on ABC’s This Week, the claim seems to have originated from the Republican media committee. If only the most liberal of Democrats were elected delegates, then John Kerry could never have become the Party’s supported presidential nominee. No, the delegates, by being elected from wards, parishes, and precincts across America, in areas with Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) activists holding the power and in areas where Howard Dean re-energized and re-populated Democratic Party meetings, are representative, at least ideologically, of Democrats throughout America. The concern of many delegates and non-delegate Democrats is that the nominee does not fully represent the Democratic Party.

The reaction to the speech given by Al Sharpton helped this writer to understand why John Kerry does not inspire support. Essentially, Sharpton said Abraham Lincoln signed a piece of paper that emancipated slaves, but that the Republican Party did not keep its promise to help the slaves that were freed. Sharpton then listed examples of how the descendants of former slaves fought (united) in a war to gain their political and social freedom, how they marched (tired after a day of hard work), and how they died (innocently as children). The delegates at the 2004 Democratic National Convention responded with applause. The cameras providing PBS’s coverage showed a difference, though. While Caucasian delegates were applauding strongly, Black delegates were applauding vigorously, grinning, and close to stomping their feet. All the delegates considered the message of the speech important, but not all of the delegates felt directly affected by the issues of which Sharpton spoke.

In a message to a friend, written while watching convention coverage, this writer noted:

I want a candidate who is going to speak to me, to my needs, to my desires as an American. Howard Dean does that. I wish Kerry would. Unfortunately, I cannot vote for the Democratic Party. I can only vote for Kerry or for none of the above.

The constant use of John Kerry’s name throughout the convention struck this writer as the building of a cult of personality. It also was a very strong reminder that the president may lead his political party, but he does not have to include the party in his administration. (George W. Bush’s ultra-right wing administration aptly demonstrates that reality.)

John Kerry is not a person who flip flops, as the Bush-Cheney campaign would have Americans believe. Instead, Kerry takes a position from those people who surround him, such as Senate colleagues, then lets constituents debate the position and provide Kerry with instructions on how to proceed. That is good for representative democracy. However, it also makes the people with whom Kerry would surround himself as president very important. Alas, this writer believes those people are less likely to be members of the democratic wing of the Democratic Party than they are to be moderate Republicans and members of the DLC. This is why it is so hard for many people in sympathy with beliefs of Democrats to support John Kerry for president.

How women would fare in a Kerry administration and under a Kerry presidency is a concern. Although the nominee included a sentence about women in his acceptance speech, there has been no indication that he has any idea what the concerns of women are. The nominee’s wife spoke more passionately about the need to provide economic assistance to women and showed a far greater understanding of the issues of gender inequality than did the nominee, himself. Unfortunately, while the spouse of a president can assert some influence, it is still the president whose ideas matter most. The use of women as props during the DNC, attired in either red, white, or blue dresses or pant suits, also struck a sour note for this writer. It was a relief to see Elizabeth Edwards wearing a pant suit that was more green than blue on the last night of the DNC.

This writer also has concern about John Kerry’s lack of acknowledgment that civil liberties must be part of the security balance in America. The delegates to the DNC and host committee volunteers might be opposed to security checks, yet they permitted the government to screen them before they participated in the show of democracy. Thus, they gave at least tacit support to a loss of liberties. Even with the ridicule heaped on the prison-like protest cage, there was little media attention to the issue of lost civil liberties. Indeed, business owners in Boston, whose businesses lost income as people who normally would be filling shops stayed home and DNC delegates stayed near the Fleet Center, were the only people who seemed to be saying, very directly, that security at the convention was too great.

There is a difference between what Democrats believe, however, and what their political leaders have permitted. This was evident when Joe Lieberman spoke. The Connecticut senator proudly reminded the convention delegates that Democrats in Congress were the people who asked for the creation of a department of homeland security. The delegates were silent, and it seemed as though they wanted to boo the comment; in the end, a few individuals decided to clap, in order to break the silence more than to support Lieberman. It’s not that Democrats do not support security measures, but that they do not believe the Department of Homeland Security has made America safer. Instead, they do believe and know that the department has invaded their lives.

Other notes from the convention:

It was sad to hear weak applause for Dick Gephardt. Yes, the man sold out the Party on numerous occasions; nevertheless, he did have a good political run that did help Americans.
Nancy Polosi spoke best when she seemed to be speaking from her own ideology, as opposed to reciting the speech approved to reinforce the convention’s theme. As the potential Speaker of the House, and as such, the person who would be second in the line of succession to the presidency, she had to be given a prominent place in the convention to speak. It was also good to see a real Democrat on the stage on Thursday night, when other speakers were Wesley Clark and John Kerry’s swift boat companions.

Like many veterans, the experience of Vietnam shaped John Kerry’s life. Alas, like many military men, Kerry also seems to ignore all the sacrifices, including of lives, that Americans have made and continue to make to this country, despite not choosing to join an organization where they would be expected to shoot to kill. The enemy we are fighting is not only a foreign group. Al Sharpton, Howard Dean, and Jimmy Carter made that point. Those speakers also noted that there is more to winning the domestic war than just electing one man president. John Kerry gives non-ultra-conservatives hope that the battle can be won, but he does not encourage belief that the war will be waged.

# # #


::: posted by Maggie at 9:18 AM



July 24, 2004 :::
 
JOINING THE CONVENTION HYPE

The start of the Democratic Convention is just days away, and the news media is flooded with stories about John Kerry, histories of conventions, and scores of predictions about what might happen come November 2nd. Why not join in?

Story 1: The Party Unites.

Dennis Kucinich has decided it’s time to join in the party’s pre-programmed fun. He has given an official endorsement to John Kerry’s campaign.

Kucinich calls for unity, and claims it is of utmost importance. Is unity needed, though? Read Kucinich’s speech as it is excerpted on his campaign website, substituting "bi-partisanship" for "unity" and the speaker could be a Republican telling Democrats that they must support Republican proposals to be good Americans. "Unity" is also an argument for Americans not to protest military action in Iraq, to rally behind the president and the flag, and to accept life as the ruling party wants us to live it. There are arguments to be made for the show of unity, but there is also a very grave danger. The unified action of the Supreme Court justices to give the keys of the White House to George W. Bush and his political family demonstrates those perils quite starkly.

"Cooperation" might be a better description of what is needed to revitalize the Democratic Party and America. Although, the word "cooperation," like "unity," can be used to say Democrats should cooperate with Republicans by voting for tax cuts for the well-to-do. "Quid pro quo" means at least one group must trust the other party to return a favor. "Contract" for mutual benefit also can be misused, as Newt Gingrich demonstrated. What word could Kucinich have used that would have implied the need to vote for John Kerry in November, but also acknowledge the feeling many Americans, including numerous Democrats, have that John Kerry does not represent many of America’s citizens?

Story 2: What’s In Your Bag?

As part of the security crackdown in Boston during the extended convention period, officials are conducting random searches of passengers on the region’s mass transit subway and light-rail lines. If you knew you might have your backpack, purse, or briefcase checked, what would you carry in it?

Three women were asked this question. One, who likes to act tough, said she would carry a chicken suit and an air-filled rubber glove with a funny face drawn on it. Another woman, mostly apolitical but aware of who is running for various political offices, said she would carry batteries and a sex toy. The third woman drew gasps from the other women when she, politically active and described as sweet natured by co-workers, said she would carry assorted anarchist literature, some instructions pulled off the Internet for cooking drugs, and other items for which the First Amendment should afford protection. If you thought your bags were going to be searched as you go about your daily living, what would you carry in, or take out of, your bag? Would you offer a challenge to the idea of searches? Would you try to cause panic by carrying a copy of a book such as the Koran or the Monkey Wrench Gang? Would you leave your homegrown and home-rolled marijuana cigarettes at home? Would you be afraid to even carry, hidden away, a button urging voters not to support George W. Bush or the war in Iraq?

Story 3: Boston 2004, Visit the Other Convention.

The World Science Fiction convention is being held in Boston this year, September 6-8. The committee organized to campaign for Boston as host of the WorldCon in 2004 bought the "Boston2004.com" domain name. This has caused some confusion with the Democratic Convention, whose committee had to go with "Boston04.com."

According to a notice on Noreascon 4's website, the science fiction group has been receiving applications for volunteers to help out with the Democratic convention. Grabbing the opportunity to be helpful, the Noreascon 4 website now offers a list of how the two conventions differ. One of those suggestions might seem partisan, i.e., the world being supported on the backs of elephants instead of donkeys, until one realizes, or learns, that the reference is to a world, sitting on the back of four elephants, that was created by Guest of Honor, Terry Pratchett, and has spawned a series of stories. (Noreascon 4 is the name of this year’s convention; and, yes, there have been earlier Noreascons.)

Some of the differences are merely a matter of obsession by officials and the attention drawn to one particular location by the political convention. These include not shutting down major Interstate highways or making it near impossible to find a hotel room near Boston, especially a hotel room that has not seen its room rate doubled to take advantage of people who need a place to sleep. Quite a few of the listed differences are acknowledgments of the money spent on a political convention, the media frenzy it creates, and the clockwork-like timing that removes creativity and interest from the event. A few of the items recognize the literary, scientific, artistic, and participatory structure of the annual World Science Fiction convention.

As this writer has attended both science fiction and political conventions, she is well experienced to note some similarities, too. There will be discussion of issues going on twenty-four hours a day. Only a few brave souls will sit through procedural meetings. Gossip about what went on in invitation-only parties will spread throughout the conventions quickly. Attendees will return home energized and with memories that will last.

# # #


::: posted by Maggie at 1:23 PM



July 22, 2004 :::
 
INTELLIGENCE PLAN SHOWS LACK OF INTELLIGENCE

The call for a national intelligence czar points up the differences between a bi-partisan panel and a non-partisan group. When acting in a bi-partisan manner, the priority of representatives is to preserve the balance between two parties. Acting in a non-partisan environment means that the priority is not on protecting the party system, thus allowing for an opportunity to find real answers and responses. Any interests of self-preservation exhibited by the CIA and the FBI are dwarfed by the two largest special interest groups in the U.S.A., i.e., the Republican and the Democratic Parties.

Here are some of the problems behind 9/11: (1) FBI local agents could not get information to top national levels. (2) CIA officials were providing warnings to the White House, but concerns were downplayed by politicians. (3) Pentagon political appointees by-passed the CIA completely to present Iraqi informers to the executive office. (4) Congressional limits on funding for overseas intelligence operations and reduced reliance on human infiltration severely limited the ability to gather and analyze information. (5) Assorted governmental divisions and agencies had processes that signaled potential concern as the men who became hijackers entered into and moved throughout the United States, but employees who expressed those concerns were told to ignore them.

Here are some of the problems we can expect if an intelligence czar is appointed: (1) Congressional funding will vary from budget year to budget year. (2) Ground-level employees of agencies such as the FBI and the CIA will continue to have difficulty passing information gathered up through the chains of command. (3) Management will continue to believe that computer technology will solve all problems, and human staffing levels will be cut to the bone. (4) Special projects of the czar, changing with who the czar is, will be given special attention while other issues, regardless of their priority, will be pushed to the side. (5) Tax dollars will be diverted from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, housing, education, and other social services to pay for the staff, technology, and special projects of the office of the intelligence czar. (6) The czar and his or her minions will be focused on the last terrorist attack and will be more concerned about getting their jobs and pleasing political patrons to the extent that they will be unable to see a new attack plan, a new anti-American group, or any other new threat.

Look at the National Security Agency for an example from history. The NSA was created to oversee satellites run by various agencies of the United States government for intelligence purposes. How is that working? Is it just another budget hole? Does it provide coordinated information? (Bombings in the past two decades suggest information sharing at the highest levels, needed to get correct information to the soldiers on the ground, does not happen, despite supposedly a centralized oversight agency. Indeed, businesses keep rediscovering the reality that an organization with fewer layers of management is a more effective, responsive, and cost-efficient entity.)

Another example can be found from the story of an American diplomat in China just after World War II. The diplomat, a university professor when he related his experience to a class, said that analysts at the American embassy were advising decision-makers that the Communists would win control of China. However, the political appointees choose to listen to the local tailor, who insisted, as he fitted the diplomats for suits, that the Nationalists would keep control of the country.

Here is some advice for elected officials, appointed officials, hired staff, and others with a direct voice in the process of trying to find a political solution to the events of 9/11: (1) Take a deep breath. (2) Ask how you, yourself, could have made a difference, including the possibility that you should have been asking questions before 9/11. (3) Play a Sim game of intelligence operations, funding, and analysis and see how often you lose. (4) Get back to dealing with your constituents on issues that matter to them in their daily lives.

# # #


::: posted by Maggie at 6:28 AM



July 19, 2004 :::
 
REFERENDUM, BY DEFAULT

According to political pundits, presidential elections, with an incumbent running, are primarily referendums on the current president. Considering the number of people who have expressed no interest in voting for George W. Bush again, but who also have no interest in voting for John Kerry, the pundits are right. However, considering, also, how little difference there seems to be among the Republican and the Democratic candidates, voters are only offered a choice of referendum. To offer a real choice, the political party in opposition would need to offer a candidate with clear differences from the incumbent.

For the current campaign, political pundits generally claim the presidential election will also be a referendum on the war in Iraq. Voters may make their decisions based primarily on events in Iraq, but the malaise in America is much more based in the personal and daily experiences of voters.

It is the Americans who care about their quality of life, and not just events in Iraq, that are most likely to question the difference between Bush and Kerry. Yes, Bush created a giant mess, with the invasion and occupation of Iraq and with increased economic imbalances in the U.S.; and, there is hope that Kerry will not create his own mess. Nevertheless, many Americans do not believe that Kerry is capable of cleaning up Bush’s mess, nor do people have faith that the ennui slithering through the American psyche will be lifted by Kerry’s leadership. Consequently, without a strong candidate promising hope, voters will likely base their decisions on whether they want to give the current incumbent four more years. Moreover, Americans have no problem with expressing their opinions of the choices given to them by withholding their ballots.
Consider the following quote:

"Before her son went to war, [the impoverished mother] believed in [the president], as did [her son, who committed suicide after returning from the war]. They voted for [the president] and thought he would bring change." "They were never in favor of the war ..., but it never occurred to them to do anything against it either, [the mother] said. ‘Next time, I will not vote for anyone at all, because I finally understand that we are not needed by anybody,’ she said. ‘In [this country], people don’t believe they can change anything themselves. But now I know we need to change the system completely."

This quote summarizes comments heard by this writer about the upcoming U.S. presidential election. However, the quote is from a Washington Post article published June 21, 2003, about Vladimir Putin, Russia, and the war in Chechnya.

# # #


::: posted by Maggie at 3:54 AM



July 13, 2004 :::
 
HOW CAMPAIGNS REINFORCE POLITICAL DISPARITY

A few years ago, a new member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Massachusetts told some of his constituents that he did not pay them as much attention as he did other constituents, because their city had a smaller number of people voting than other cities in his district. Earlier this year in an eastern Pennsylvania city at a one-day training session for young adults interested in how campaigns worked, attendees were told to focus their efforts in communities where the greatest number of people have voted in the past. With political behavior such as these two incidents exemplify, how are we, as a society, ever going to persuade current non-voters that they are represented in government and their voices will be heard?

Which should come first? Should citizens pour into the polls to demand attention, or should elected officials start representing all their constituents? Considering that many citizens vote with their feet, i.e., they stay away from the polls to protest lack of choice and lack of support for the choices offered, it should be incumbent (pun intended) upon elected officials to demonstrate that they represent everyone in order to pull voters back to the ballot booth.

Money also makes a difference. Individuals can contribute $1.00 to $2,000 to candidates, depending on the office being sought and whether the upcoming election is a primary or a general one. Plus, more money can be given to political action committees or non-candidate, issue-based organizations. Some constituents have raised the fact that they contribute, even token amounts, when talking with elected representatives. They may be trying to imply a quid pro quo, or the statement might be merely a stronger way of saying, “I voted for you, but next time I can withhold my support.” This writer began contributing in recent years after hearing the sense of ownership in the representative’s win that other constituents exhibited. Yet, the small amounts of money contributed did not buy better constituent access, which was needed for even routine assistance (such as in cutting through bureaucratic run around) from officials’ staffs.

As has been stated in previous essays of this blog, there is concern about equal representation when candidates hold fundraisers and charge an entry fee of $1,000 and upwards. That entry buys conversations with elected officials and other decision-makers. Years ago, one such official stated that he may not be able to help a large contributor, but he certainly would make sure to take the contributor’s phone call. That official made it quite clear that a person contributing $5.00 to his campaign would not receive the same level of attention. For a person working a minimum wage job forty hours a week, every week of the year, the entry fee would be about 10% of his or her income. A person making $60,000 a year, which is near the national median family income, give or take $10,000, would pay just over 1.5%. A millionaire would pay one-tenth of one percent (0.01%) of his or her annual income. Even if a millionaire contributed $10,000 for entry to a fundraiser, such as was the amount paid for some party functions in the past, that would still be only 1% of the year’s income. Moreover, by contributing in large amounts to more than one candidate, an individual is much more likely to have a candidate elected and, thus, have bought access to the services of government for which the middle class and poor already pay taxes.

Not only is money an issue in access, the obsession with totalitarian security, even long before September 2001, has made attending rallies and public hearings intimidating. Post-World Trade Center paranoia has made public dissent even harder. This Spring, a reporter in Massachusetts wrote about trying to attend a talk by Gov. Mitt Romney. People were being screened and told that coats and literature were not allowed inside the meeting room, because of security. The reporter questioned how literature, being distributed outside the building by opponents of the Republican governor’s policies, was a security problem. Although, the reporter, having driven to the meeting, opined that he could see how coats and other items could be prohibited. For people who take public transportation, it may not be convenient to leave a coat at home. In addition, bus rides take long enough without having to leave disc players, books, and all the other items that go into a backpack at home. Yet, when John Kerry holds rallies, people interested in attending are told to leave backpacks and other large bags at home.

Also this Spring, at a public meeting to discuss urban planning in Pittsburgh, attendees were told they must sign up and have their name placed on a list to get past security in the building where the meeting was held. People who do not have proper identification, who do not know in advance what their schedules will allow, and who believe that public participation must allow for some privacy, even of attendance, could well feel excluded from participating in a government that already is full of barriers.

As a person with a wide range of interests and a willingness to sacrifice in order to participate in all levels of government, this writer has avoided participation because of the increasing difficulties in gaining access to the process and administration of government, let alone elected and other officials. First off, this society does not value people with wide-ranging interests. Such individuals are usually considered to be too inexpert at anything to offer a qualified opinion or just out to cause trouble for the sake of being troublesome. Consequently, it sometimes is beneficial to opine in anonymous phone calls or at public hearings just to keep the name of one person from being too widely used. At other times, it is good to attend events just in order to gather first-hand information and experience, and identity should not be an issue. Secondly, if an event is a significant bus ride away, the event often is combined with errands or plans to enjoy a good restaurant with a good book. As such, a backpack is needed to carry the billfold, the book, the reading glasses, the cloth shopping bags, and all the other items needed for a day’s worth of tasks. When backpacks are not allowed into events, this writer is being told either to waste considerable time staring into space as she waits for buses and then has to repeat the trip in order to carry the items necessary for other errands, or not to participate in a common democratic event.

For people who never have participated in public hearings, political events, or voting, being told they must show identification and otherwise be vetted undoubtedly does not seem worth the time or effort. This only is reinforced when candidates write off communities where few people have voted, and candidates do not bother door knocking, leaving leaflets, or otherwise trying to include their potential constituents in their realm of responsibility.

# # #


::: posted by Maggie at 7:23 AM



July 06, 2004 :::
 
BACK TO THE PRIMARIES

The June 2004 issue of The American Prospect has an article by Harold Meyerson that relates how Democrats in the House of Representatives were glad to see Nancy Pelosi replace Dick Gephardt as minority speaker. As with many Americans, the legislators thought Gephardt had lost too many times and had forgotten how to fight for Democratic ideas. This writer was encouraged by the reporting, since it indicated that Congress and the people represented had more in common than often is conveyed by media. Nevertheless, the article also sent shivers down the writer’s spine as news reports noted Gephardt was on Kerry’s short list for the vice presidential slot.

One person talking to this writer was not bothered by news reports of Gephardt and John McCain being considered for the second spot on the ticket, and, possibly the second seat in the executive office. That person considered the reports to be nothing more than politics and that John Kerry would never have picked either man. There are at least two problems with that attitude. One, no one seems to really know what Kerry will do at any given time. Two, Americans are tired of being strung along with politics as usual. If we cannot consider people on the short list for vice president to be serious contenders, how are we to respect any choices Kerry might offer up as possibilities for cabinet positions, judgeships, and other appointments? Yes, politics is a magic show, where people are suggested for positions merely to please certain audiences. Yet, there also seems to be a sense that too little reality has been included lately. (Blame for that lack of reality rests totally with the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress.)

One of the problems Kerry has is that he does not seem to relate to the vast majority of Democrats and Americans. Even John Edwards’ talk about two Americas is more about the wealthy and the well-off rather than about the wealthy, well-off, and struggling. In an article about providing legal services to the middle class, this writer finally saw a breakout of income that really describes how much money is earned by the middle class. The article in the July-August issue of The Pennsylvania Lawyer cites data from the 2002 U.S. Census Bureau. The lowest 20% of families earn less than $24,000 per year, while the top 20% earn more than $165,000, leaving the broad middle-class with incomes of between $24,000 and $165,000. Kerry and Edwards, however, describe the middle class in terms of $200,000 in annual income, or more.

(The full breakout is: 20%=<$24,000; 40%=<$40,000; 60%=<$95,000; 80%=<$165,000; and 20%=>$165,000.)

While Kerry has taken over Pittsburgh and the southwestern part of Pennsylvania, Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton have spent time in the eastern part of the state helping the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, Joe Hoeffel, raise money in and around his home base of Philadelphia.

Wes Clark and Bob Graham stayed in the news as various people raised their names amid the speculation of whom Kerry would choose to be his running mate. (Sadly, one woman reported that other women were telling her that Kerry should not select a woman for the vice presidential nominee because it would hurt the Democrats chances of beating Bush.)

Carol Moseley Braun has spent the past few months talking at universities, including at Iowa State University, under the sponsorship of the Mary Louise Smith Chair in Women and Politics. (Mary Louise Smith was the only woman to chair the Republican National Committee.)

Al Sharpton also has spent time talking on university campuses and to some reporters. Technically, he remains in the contest for the party’s nomination.

Joe Lieberman continues as a U.S. Senator from Connecticut. His Senate website currently highlights environmental issues, with some items on health, small business, and defense spending in his state. He is in the fourth year of his third term in the Senate.

Dennis Kucinich remains in the campaign, continuing to make appearances and to maintain his website. In addition to issuing a brief statement in support of Edwards as Kerry’s running mate, Kucinich’s website highlights the upcoming Democratic Party’s Platform Committee meeting in Miami. While presidential candidates do not follow platforms perfectly, it is important for motivating party members that progressive issues make it into the party’s platform. Kucinich, as has been his role throughout the campaign, continues to remind us that some people still care about core values, in addition to electability.

# # #

::: posted by Maggie at 7:14 PM



July 05, 2004 :::
 
MALAISE AND ENNUI

In early spring of this year, people in America seemed to exude hope. Perhaps it was just springtime, but this writer wondered if it also were not a sense of hope that the presidency of George W. Bush was nearing its end and that life in America would, consequently, soon be improving. Now, in early summer, Americans seem to have sought out shelter, but from what?

Is it the presidential candidates' obsession with just seventeen states? What message is being sent to the majority of the nation's voters when they are told they are not worthy of seeing a candidate's campaign ads? Okay, many people will be happy. However, will those people remain pleased to be excluded when they realize that no advertisements also means no respect for their opinions, concerns, and priorities?

Is it the disenchantment Democrats have for John Kerry as their party's presidential nominee? Jay Leno had a joke last month that Kerry stopped campaigning (out of respect for a former president) and his poll numbers went up. Kerry seems to have more support for his being anyone but George W. Bush than for his positions on issues or for his image as a leader for a direction we, as a nation, might wish to go. Democrats and independents seem to be starting to ask what is Kerry's plan for after regime change.

Is it the contrast between a growing economy and decreasing income? Just as Wall Street has developed products that have no connection with anything but theoretical dollars, the definition of the economy has come to have no connection with the welfare of Americans.

Is it the media focus on Iraq and Saddam Hussein? Events in Iraq are important, but there is also a sense that Iraq is merely a distraction from dangerous economic, civil rights, and politic
participation problems in America.

Is it local events? The weather where this writer lives has been hot and humid. In addition, the city council gave approval for another tax increase, while citizens appeared to be quiet. The citizens here seem to be quiet all too frequently, making change very difficult.

Whatever the cause and however widely spread the malaise, or sense of something wrong, the weariness of Americans and their dissatisfaction with current conditions and the foreseeable future continues to grow.

# # #


::: posted by Maggie at 5:24 AM



June 08, 2004 :::
 
THE GREAT DIVIDER

A comment was submitted to this writer that a fight broke out in a chat room over the weekend between people who liked Ronald Reagan and those who did not. The comment did not include any information on the type of chat room (e.g., age range or self-identified purpose, whether political, social, or other), but it did capture the line drawn in America when Reagan became president. The alleged divide between liberals and conservatives that national media commentators keep trying to use as a plot devise in their entertainment-oriented reporting started with Ronald Reagan. Thus, as was stated in the comment given to this writer, Reagan was The Great Divider.

Unfortunately, upon Reagan's death, the news media was as ignorant of the opponents to Reagan's political policies as they have been with been with opponents to the actions and claims of George W. Bush. Letters read Sunday on NPR's All Things Considered about the news program's Saturday edition pointed
this out quite starkly. One letter writer noted that Reagan's accomplishments were not that many, adding that NPR merely was repeating the same few things in its obsessive broadcasting about Reagan's life. Another writer wondered why a person who had been out of office for years and mostly forgotten should merit the amount of time his death was given. It is slightly disturbing to see how easily the analysts connect the troubles of Nixon's administration and the scum it left on the American psyche with the feel good vibes of the Reagan administration, without any recognition that Jimmy Carter also was president for four years.

The office of president is an important symbol of the United States. As such, it is to be expected that the death of a person who once held that office should be given significant news coverage. However, as with the excessive naming of buildings and airports after Ronald Wilson Reagan, the news media was excessive in its early homage to Reagan upon his death. The special reports about Reagan and exclusion of current events in many newscasts, combined with the major retrospectives given to the 60th anniversary of the landing on Normandy's beaches, made it seem as though there were no current events worthy of coverage.

When this writer first started designing political products, one of the first sayings included on the www.maggiefeld.com website was: Ronald Reagan's trickle down tax cuts took so long to work, Bill Clinton got the credit twelve years later. More recently, she wrote an essay for a print periodical questioning whether the Cold War's end, with Reagan generally being given credit for winning the war, was really a victory for America.

The election of George H.W. Bush as president was acknowledgement of how much Americans liked Ronald Reagan as a person serving as a public official. The defeat of George H.W. Bush four years later was acknowledgement of how much Americans disliked Ronald Reagan's economic policies. Even during the economic boom of the Clinton years, when many of the people usually left jobless were able to find work, incomes for most Americans continued to lag behind the buying power they held before Reagan became president.

Although the United States' support of Saddam Hussein began during the Eisenhower administration, Reagan increased the stakes by providing weapons of mass destruction to Iraq and by encouraging Iraq to start and to end several wars. It was also Reagan's administration that sold arms, illegally, to Iran, after encouraging Iraq to pick a fight with Iran, in order to fund CIA operations and to promote repressive governments' death squads in Nicaragua and other countries of Central America. We should also not forget the Reagan administration's funding of Taliban precursors in Afghanistan.

The collapse of the Soviet Union has been connected with Reagan's promotion of the Star Wars missile defense system and nuclear issues that the U.S.S.R. could not afford to match. Unfortunately, neither could the U.S.A. afford them, and many of the fees Americans pay for services that once were free and the decrease in funding to help the least financially well off of our residents are linked to Reagan's military expenditures.

The Bee Gees song about starting a joke that started the whole world crying seems an appropriate requiem for Ronald Reagan's presidency, especially considering the current economic difficulties of Americans that are directly linked to George W. Bush's practice of Reaganomics and invasion of Iraq. Americans need to learn, or re-learn, that it is okay to oppose someone's policies while still respecting, or liking, the person.

The Democratic candidates for president, in comments posted on their campaign websites, spoke of Ronald Reagan's human qualities. Dennis Kucinich said, "More than any President in modern times, [Ronald Reagan] understood the essential optimism of the American people." John Kerry, continuing his long-winded comments that end up alienating Democrats began his statement with, "Ronald Reagan's love of country was infectious. Even when he was breaking Democrats hearts, he did so with a smile and in the spirit of honest and open debate." Kerry kept going, though, and ended with, "Americans will bow their heads in prayer and gratitude that President Reagan left such an indelible stamp on the nation he loved" There are many Americans who do not believe that gratitude accurately describes their disgust with Reagan's political and human rights records.


# # #


::: posted by Maggie at 4:50 AM



June 02, 2004 :::
 
22 WEEKS TO NOVEMBER 2 (less 1 day)

John Kerry sounds like George W. Bush in that he issues blame, then states a positive concept but neglects to give any details on who must pay or the consequences. In a recent speech Kerry gave about reducing the United States' dependency on foreign oil, his unspoken message was that Americans are not expected to give up any of their gas-guzzling lawn equipment, giant houses, recreational boats and all terrain vehicles (ATVs), or reduce their driving. No, instead, the people who care for a clean environment, the poor who cannot afford the energy-hogging toys, and anyone suffering from asthma, emphysema, or other health problems brought on by the abusive use of gas-powered or high-speed equipment that, collectively, emit constant air pollution and noise are forced to keep on giving up their qualities of life.

This writer is hearing an increasing number of people declaring they cannot support John Kerry with their votes. These people will not vote for George W. Bush, nor will they likely vote for Ralph Nader or any other candidate whose name appears on a ballot. Instead, they will stay away from the voting booths come November. Some, but not all, of these citizens take pride in never having voted, often because they feel the government and elected officials never have done anything for them or to help their lives, or that candidates never keep their campaign promises once elected.

Perhaps it is only the group of people with them this writer discusses voting issues, but a very large number of these apathetically-inclined citizens seem to be women. Does that mean our government, created by men, is biased against women in its very structure? What does it mean that these people speak with pride of not partaking in the most basic feature of democracy, i.e., the vote? Do they take pride in not pledging allegience to the flag or in not paying taxes? Why are they so proud of their records as non-voters? What do they hope to say or to achieve by not voting?

On the issue of oil and Kerry's comment, lending organizations dominated by the U.S. government and financial corporations often force countries seeking international loans to end price supports on important consumer items. When the price of bread or other staple food product doubles overnight, the citizens of those countries have been known to riot in protest. This writer commented to a friend that people in the U.S. were rioting over rising gas prices, a comment to which the friend vigorously objected. True enough, public buildings are not being besieged and cars are not being burnt, although burning cars might seem as much a symbol of breaking from the chain holding us to oil as it would seem an outlet for anger over the economic disaster rising oil prices might bring. Nevertheless, disruptive protests have arisen, including an increase in the number of incidents of people pumping gasoline but not paying for it.

In a country where politically-active groups spend months promoting big protests, such as the anti-war demonstrations of the past two years and this year's march for women's rights in Washington, where everything is scripted almost as much as the conventions of the major political parties, what does it mean to have a spontaneous citizen-created protest, whether in the form of a riot or just blocking a street? (Of course, in America, where the motorist is given undue priority, some police departments have considered marching down a street without a permit specific to that time or location to be akin to a riot.) In a country where the Supreme Court decides who will become president, even as some justices dissent quietly; in a country where that same president takes the country into a war, a war many legal experts consider illegal; in a country where that same president lies both to the U.S. Congress, i.e., the people's representatives, and directly to the people, although many elected officials and private citizens tried to have their questioning voices heard, what does it take for the public to take to the streets in protest? In such a country as this, is it hard to understand why there have been no public demonstrations in the form of riots over the price of a commodity that many people consider their right as Americans to acquire cheaply? After all, wasn't it the U.S. government that told us to build roads, block off sidewalks, place moats of pedestrian-dangerous parking lots around grocery stores and hospitals? Wasn't it the U.S. government that told us we should buy those big, hard-to-heat homes out in the suburbs and then have multiple cars as our access to jobs, shopping, and entertainment? Why, then, isn't it the U.S. government's responsibility to make sure we have cheap gasoline?

Oh, wait, that's right. George W. Bush invaded Iraq so the U.S. consumer could have cheap gasoline, while U.S. oil companies reaped big profits. It is John Kerry who wants to send another 40,000 American soldiers to Iraq to help make sure Bush's plan succeeds, but not until after Kerry becomes president.

# # #


::: posted by Maggie at 9:28 AM



May 31, 2004 :::
 
MEMORIAL DAY

Comments have been made about the number of military veterans in the U.S. Congress. People seem to think it is a bad idea to have a decreasing number. Yet, fewer veterans in Congress reflects the smaller number of U.S. military personnel employed, as well as the fewer number of soldiers who merely took time from another career to serve as part of a unique world war or as part of a draft instead of taking up the military sword as part of a career investment. We should be looking towards the day when we have so few wars that there can be no veterans to fill the halls of Congress.

As for the idea that people who send other people's children off to war should have the experience of fighting or sending their own children, we, as citizens, expect our elected representatives to vote on issues with which they have no personal connection on a regular basis. Indeed, we become frustrated and angry when our concerns and perspectives are ignored because our needs and experiences are not those of our elected officials and thus belittled by our representatives due to their lack of interest.

This year marks the 150th anniversary of the Crimean War. Echoes of that war can be heard in America's current war, starting with the old war being fought over issues related to who controlled holy sites in Jerusalem. The war ended with a weakened Austria, whose failed diplomacy diminished the once-powerful country, and whose weakening allowed the unification, and strengthening, of Germany and Italy. It was the growing power that Germany gathered in the late 1800's that allowed it to take the lead of one side in two great wars in the 1900's. It was America's strength in the second World War that allowed it become a military and economic power, which, in turn, led it to feel confident in invading and managing another country. However, just as Austria lost its position of power even though it did not lose or even fight in the Crimean War, a military victory in Iraq for the United States does not mean the U.S. will not lose as a result of the current Gulf War.

As for the changing face of war, the U.S. must look to itself as a player in the creation of the new order. Turkey declared war on Russia on October 4, 1853. Prior to that date, military offensives were taken by Russia for defensive positioning. Before those offensives occurred, Great Britain and France were trying to influence decisions by both Turkey and Russia, as well as trying to get Austria to exert its influence in their favor. When threats did not work, Great Britain and France formed an alliance and declared war on Russia on March 27, 1854. Over the next year, with most of the fighting taking place on or near the Black Sea, there was danger of the fighting expanding to the Baltic Sea and pulling in more countries. With each of the several countries involved using the differences between Turkey and Russia over whether the Orthodox Church or the Latin Church would hold the key to sites in the Holy Land as a lever for their own individual interests, for the most part, when military action occurred, the formal step of declaring war was taken.

After the second World War, the world tried to pretend war was a thing of the past by fighting without declaring war. Political officials did not have to go on record as saying they were fighting another country; this was especially important since their countries' ambassadors had to co-exist within the United Nations. Peace treaties gave way to demilitarized zones. Definite dates for wars' beginnings and ends gave way to fuzzy declarations of major hostilities ending. Combatants moved from the everyday man drafted to fight to professional soldiers, whether highly-trained or hired for convenience of location or desperation for work. As the definition of war became smudged, so did the definition of combatant. Was it really a leap from there to find wealthy individuals funding their own armies for their own ill-defined wars?

On this Memorial Day, it is fitting to remember the ordinary people who faced extraordinary conditions due to war. It is just as important to remember the history of why wars began and the changes they wrought and continue to bring. Unfortunately, until the people of the United States and all the world start to recognize the strength of individuals in everyday life, without waiting to witness them under moments of historical change, war will always exist. Otherwise, how will each generation be allowed to measure itself against the earlier generations and against each other? When will we start taking pride in the fact that we have so few veterans in Congress, instead of berating the individuals we've elected for not having chosen to prove themselves first in physical combat? When will we start praising the people who have chosen difficult paths in life to fight for their country in ways other than with military formality and bombs bursting on foreign homes? When will we be able to choose a president without first asking in which war he or she fought?

# # #


::: posted by Maggie at 6:29 PM



May 24, 2004 :::
 
WHICH TACK TO TAKE

It has been three weeks since an essay was written for this blog. The tradition here is that an explanation is offered when a significant amount of time has passed between entries. Of all the excuses for this current gap, which one is most relevant? Perhaps the list of reasons should start with the one that is most important, but which one would that be? This writer finds herself appreciating the difficulty political campaign managers and candidates have in trying to decide when, where, and how to present their own plans, especially when there are always new current events demanding attention and worthy of response.

As this current draft is being written, a radio program is on in the background with yet more Westerners talking about the butchers of the Middle East. The disgust this arrogance brings is part of the reason for the three week delay in posting any new essays. The current conversation being broadcast is typical in that people Americans call terrorists are being abased by being called sub-human. "How can people do such things?" is the question. The next comment usually is, "We should torture them to make them stop." The more we behave as barbarians, the more we come to accept such behavior as the norm. The ease with which America's military bombs civilian targets, the type of act for which other nations' governmental leaders have been indicted as war criminals, is an example of how societal complacency permits outrageous actions to proliferate.

Writing for the blog also has been delayed as this writer spent time reflecting on the potential of John Kerry as president and trying to determine her own position on whether Kerry deserved her personal support and vote. The theme of this blog is about the sleeping electorate, particularly socially- and economically-liberal voters. The goal is to remove George W. Bush from office, but also to provide for proper representation in the White House of those who now are not voting because they do not feel represented. There are many paths to that goal, including voting for Kerry, promoting wide-spread and easy polling booth access for voters, and persuading Americans not to vote for Bush. (Bush has been economically liberal in the amount of money he distributes, but he has not been economically liberal in the distribution of that money.)

The proliferation of registration requirements to access newspapers online continues to be an irritant. The contents of the newspapers accessed also remains irritating. When this writer read that the European Union was allowing genetically-modified food stuffs to be sold and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization stated its approval of such food products, she closed the Internet browser window and stayed away for the rest of the day out of sheer exhaustion at seeing bad news. Alas, while society can wrap a bothersome tidbit in a lovely flag, the resulting pearl of patriotism does not correct the original problem.

Summer-type weather and severe storms also have had a role in the delay of an essay. When the humidity and temperatures are high, it is difficult for this writer to care about writing. The computer equipment does not like heat and water, either. When lightning flashes overhead, this writer shuts off the computer equipment, having known too many people whose equipment was destroyed by electrical storms. There were several days and nights during the past week when the storms were of such duration as to make it impossible to use the computer at all. (What is causing these impressive storms is a topic this writer has not seen addressed, directly. Maybe it has to do with all the depleted uranium being used by the U.S. military in Iraq, or it could be the excess moisture being released by the melting Canadian glaciers/ice packs.)

Finally, other projects have taken up this writer's time. A photography project, in particular, has been taking up time. This writer continues to believe this blog is important, but
sometimes it is a struggle to find the motivation to work the writing of, and research for, an essay into a day's list of tasks. By comparison, it is relatively easy to fit a short detour to a polling booth into a busy day once or twice a year.

# # #


::: posted by Maggie at 2:33 AM



May 04, 2004 :::
 
26 WEEKS TO DB DAY

November 2 is Defeat Bush Day. That means the MKE campaign has 25 weeks and 6 days to Make Kerry Electable. Despite the rush of voters in Iowa and New Hampshire to cast ballots for John Kerry because they thought he might beat George W. Bush, Americans, in general, and Democratic activists, in particular, have intensified their questioning of just how many people will want to vote for Kerry in November.

A May 2nd New York Times article reported on the concern Democrats have that Kerry has yet to identify himself with a theme for his campaign. While primary voters imagined Kerry's record in Vietnam playing against Bush's absence of a record in the National Guard, "[t]hat argument for his election evaporated the moment the [primary] race ended, Democrats said," according to article by Adam Nagourney. The lack of established grassroots groups in key states and a paid campaign staff largely inexperienced in presidential campaigns also are posing problems for the Kerry campaign. In contrast, Bush's campaign already has settled on the image of Bush as a strong leader, while Kerry is portrayed as flip flopping on important actions.

An online commentary by Rob Kall at opednews.com just before the April 27th Pennsylvania primary noted that an increasing number of people have been commenting on the lack of difference between George Bush and John Kerry, although no elaboration was provided. Kall said he would vote for Dennis Kucinich in the primary to express support for the grassroots side of the party, but would vote for Kerry in November to help defeat Bush. (The results of the Pennsylvania primary roughly were: Kerry - 73.5%, Howard Dean - 10.0%, John Edwards - 9.7%, Dennis Kucinich - 3.8%, and Lyndon LaRouche - 2.8%. This indicates that there is support for the Democratic party nominee, but that there remain questions about the individual who is the likely nominee. There were more votes cast for Bush than for all the Democrats, but there was a heated primary race for the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate.)

A poll by ABC News and the Washington Post, completed on April 18th and publicly released on May 2nd, has results that placed Bush ahead of Kerry in certain areas of voters' perceptions; however, neither candidate received more than 45% support in any category. Quoting from the ABC News website: "Bush was rated more highly than Kerry on attributes such as consistency, truthfulness, trustworthiness and strong leadership." Bush certainly has been more consistent than Kerry. Bush consistently has refused to admit he lied about weapons in Iraq, refused to explain his obsession with Iraq in terms of the decades-long U.S. support for and use of Saddam Hussein, and refused to help anyone but a few American companies and their officers. For some people that steadfastness in the face of disastrous results shows leadership, a belief that Bush reinforces with his "stay the course" message. Kerry has failed to respond that leadership means recognizing when the course needs changed and making the change; instead, Kerry has allowed Bush to characterize him as a person who flip flops and follows other people's leads. "Caring and compassionate" and "friendly and likeable" showed the widest spread in the poll, with Bush given better results. Yet, Bush also was considered to be more "cold and distant." Kerry did beat Bush for having a "boring personality," but that could be because Bush's speech patterns provide such comedy.

Taken together, these interviews, comments, and responses do not bode well for Kerry's success in defeating the empire represented by Tsar George in November. Democrats have said they would vote for the party's nominee, but an election win needs to pull strong support from voters who are not Democratic party stalwarts.

FAIR chips into the debate with an online item about right wing-leaning media commentators who are calling for Kerry to move closer to Republican positions. The media advisory notes this is not uncommon: " Every four years, loud voices in the media advise the Democratic presidential candidate to abandon progressive stances and occupy the political center." Examples of commentaries included Joe Klein's and Tom Freidman's recommendations that Kerry select Republican Senator John McCain as his vice presidential running mate. The advisory counters the commentators: " The notion that the Democrats' problem is that they are too far left has been conventional wisdom for so long … that it's worth noting that this is not the only possible diagnosis. Many elections are won by the party most able to energize its base, which is why the Republicans have several times won the presidency with candidates who quite consciously moved away from the center, toward their party's ideological pole."

Kerry's greatest problem in November could be the silent majority of liberal Democrats and uninspired registered independent voters who stay home. If Kerry neglects the results of the Pennsylvania primaries and other indictors of discontent within the party, empty polling places could very well be the result.

# # #


::: posted by Maggie at 4:50 PM



April 27, 2004 :::
 
IRAQ, AMERICAN CANDIDATES, AND QUESTIONS

Shortly after September 11, 2001, people started asking when they could express humor based on the attacks on the World Trade Center. (Why was nobody, or at most very few people, asking about timing for jokes based on the planes flown into the Pentagon or crashed in Pennsylvania?)

Why was the World Trade Center a target in 1993 and 2001? This is a question that has been nagging this writer for almost three years. With September 11, 2001, being election day across the United States, this writer rushed to judgment and declared a belief that there was a connection with the violent actions of al Qaeda and America's symbol of democracy. As the federal government, as well as local- and state-level governments, building owners, and other Americans rushed to increase security, or, usually, to increase a show of authority in lieu of security, no one offered reasons for why September 11 was the chosen date or the World Trade Center a chosen target. Even with all the money and media coverage being spent on investigating the day the USA stood still, this writer has yet to note any evidence as to the destination of the third plane or why September 11 was the date of the plan's implementation. If the second plane had been intended for the White House, that would be logical as it would be a direct attack on a major symbol of the U.S.; however, that is an American-biased belief. Would the people who selected the targets be thinking that way?

Humor based on the invasion and occupation of Iraq is plentiful, albeit limited to stand-up comedy and editorial cartoons. Halliburton's contracts and Bush's questionable reasons for taking the country to war in Iraq are the main punchlines. Real life provided a new joke, which is funny because it is fed from the spring of truth. Yesterday, Canada's Globe and Mail included a picture showing an Iraqi in victory pose atop a burned-out, and still smoldering, Humvee. It is easy to replace the Iraqi with a Californian standing atop one of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's seven (7!) Humvees. In the U.S., as in Iraq, the Humvee stands as a symbol of American excess, and the disregard of America's ruling class to the people struggling to put food on their tables and to live in a world not wracked by oil-fueled violence.

Despite unanswered questions about what George W. Bush and company knew and when they knew it, and without any reasons given, the political elite of American, including the mainstream news media, continue to insist that Americans give more credit (read: votes) to Republicans than to Democrats when it comes to protecting against terrorism. Why? More importantly, what have Democrats offered Americans to help counter that image, besides the Iraq war, the Department of Homeland Security and increased surveillance of Americans, and the USA Patriot Act? A liberal could be forgiven, or maybe arrested, for thinking, "With friends like this, who needs Republicans?"

John Kerry's plan for Bush's war, or what Kerry's campaign refers to as "A strategy to win the peace in Iraq," can be refined down to: Reach out and get more nations involved. The Homerian response to this is: Doh!. (Why quote from The Iliad when The Simpsons is written so succinctly?) How would a President Kerry reach out and involve other countries? What is he willing to give up and pay out to restore support for America and America's actions in the Middle East? Unfortunately, Kerry's strategy is as empty as that offered by many Americans, i.e., get international support, but do not listen for the reasons when the world says no, again. While Kerry cannot be seen as undercutting the chain of command that has Bush in titular charge for nine more months, he does not need to sound like an echo of the Republican administration's theme, American sovereignty for Iraq.

Kerry's campaign website offers the following details:

(1) "Level with the American People. Kerry recognizes that the security situation is deteriorating and dangerous. He believes we should stop sugar-coating what’s going on in Iraq." (But where is the call to level with the American People about why we are in Iraq at all, or who benefits from oil deals?)

(2) "Supply Our Military Commanders with the Additional Troops Requested. We have to succeed in Iraq. We simply can’t allow it to become a failed state. That would mean a victory for extremism, new dangers in the Middle East and a breeding ground for anti-American terrorism. To succeed, we are going to need more forces on a temporary basis." (Does Kerry mean a "failed state" like in Yugoslavia? Maybe he means like in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Then there are the examples of Angola and Afghanistan, where the U.S. helped the countries "fail" to support American hegemony during the Cold War. Or, maybe the state might "fail" only if it became a Muslim-dominated theocracy. Although, if extremism, anti-Americanism, and Middle East dangers are the criteria for a "failed state," then Saudi Arabia might be the perfect example.)

(3) "Launch a Diplomatic Strategy that will Work. Kerry supports the plan outlined by UN Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi. The US should immediately seek a UN Security Council resolution authorizing a mission with responsibility for the transition and elections. Kerry believes that we need to get the Iraqi Governing Council to accept the Brahimi Plan." (Kerry should practice leveling with the American people, himself. He offers nothing under this step that is a solution. The United Nations will not supervise elections without their first being peace. Ahmed Chalabi has a financial interest in clinging to his position in the Coalition Provisional Authority. Iraq will still be an occupied country and taxpayers in the U.S. will still be paying for an unnecessary war.)

(4) "Establish An International Mission to Ensure Stability and Set up Elections. Kerry believes we need a plan for the period after June 30 ….. We should establish an international mission authorized by the UN to work with the interim government on governance issues … reconstruction … and rebuilding …. A … non-American… should then be asked to run the mission in order to decrease the perception of an American occupation." (Where are the Iraqi people in this plan?)

(5) "Transform U.S. Force into a NATO Security Force Commanded by an American, and Bring in Other Countries. … The whole world has an interest in a stable Iraq, but the White House hasn’t demonstrated the ability to bring in our friends and allies in a substantial way." (NATO remains predominately non-Muslim, which continues to be an issue among some Iraqis. America remains in charge; Kerry's plan just adds a couple layers of veneer to try to hide American control from the foreign press and average Iraqis.)

Dennis Kucinich, still running for the Democratic presidential nomination, offers more direct solutions for the war in and occupation of Iraq. Since Kucinich is not likely to become the nominee, he can speak more freely than Kerry in challenging the current chain of command. Nevertheless, the stark differences between Kucinich's and Kerry's plans for the Iraq problem serve to highlight the question mark many liberals still have beside Kerry's name.

Kucinich's directness of opinion makes Kerry sound as though he supports an on-going U.S. presence in Iraq. Moreover, where Kerry offers a strategic plan, Kucinich approaches the problem of Iraq somewhat tactically. Kucinich leaves no room to doubt his position. On the campaign website, Kucinich states, "It was wrong to in [to Iraq], it is wrong to stay in." The steps Kucinich would take to correct the double error, as presented on his campaign's website and during a pre-primary speech he gave in Pennsylvania a few days ago, are:

(1) "[G]et the UN involved and bring in UN peacekeepers." (U.N. peacekeepers are lightly armed and rarely allowed to use force. Kucinich is angry about the U.S. being in Iraq, but the rest of the world is loathe to let it's soldiers die to help the U.S. correct its mistake, without some assurance that the U.S. will not try another stunt.)

(2) "[T]urn over to the UN control of the oil to be handled on behalf of the Iraqi people until the Iraqi people are self-governing, [and turn over] control of the contracts [to the UN] so there will be no more Halliburton sweetheart deals, no more privatization of Iraq, and no trying to run the government of Iraq by remote control." (Letting Iraq's oil go first to the Iraqi people would be best step possible to start correcting the situation. There has been concern expressed about corruption in previous U.N.-managed contracts and oil funds, but this writer is not familiar with the details of those concerns.)

(3) "[H]elp rebuild Iraq to the extent that we destroyed it, pay reparations to the families of innocent civilians and noncombatants who have lost their lives…." (In U.S. domestic politics, this is more powerful than a nuclear bomb. How likely is it that Americans, who cannot even take responsibility for their own actions behind the wheels of cars, would tolerate being taxed to repair a country that our political leadership has portrayed as ungrateful, uneducated, and unworthy of self-determination? Nevertheless, paying reparations would be the responsible, and possibly legal, thing for the U.S. to do. If the U.S. is going to redeem itself to the world for invading Iraq, the U.S. is going to have to take a grand action.)

(4) Let the Coalition Provisional Authority have a say in running Iraq, even though the people of Iraq are not highly supportive of the CPA, and let the U.N. run the Iraqi elections. (Basically, everyone seems to be in favor of letting the U.N. run Iraq's elections. The differences start to show when groups try to decide who will be allowed to run for office. As for allowing the CPA to have a say in running Iraq, if Chalabi were not being paid by the U.S. and not making profit from reconstruction contracts and not sitting as the head of the CPA, the Iraqi people might be more comfortable with the idea.)

At the end of his speech about Iraq in Pennsylvania, Kucinich made a point that is well supported by history. Kucinich said the U.S. would pull out of Iraq at some point, whether it is in ten years or ten days; why not pull out now, before more American troops were killed?

FLOG THEM WITH A FLAG

The U.S. has given Iraq a new flag. When George W. Bush dies, will his casket be draped with the flags of both the U.S.A. and post-usurpation Iraq? Would it not have been better for such a public emblem of Iraq to have been designed after Iraqis regained sovereignty over their country and were free to participate in the design and selection process? Will the U.S. authorities now write a new pledge of allegiance for school children and reformed Baathist officials to recite that calls for one nation under God?

# # #


::: posted by Maggie at 12:16 PM



April 22, 2004 :::
 
AN EARTH DAY MESSAGE IN SUPPORT OF TENANTS

The following is an open letter to landlords from tenants; however, the message is for everyone who lives on Earth.

Dear Landlord,

April 22nd is Earth Day. There are steps you can take in your residential rental buildings to celebrate the day. These actions will help the planet, but they also will improve living conditions for your tenants, promote the neighborhoods in which your buildings are located, and improve the value of your investments.

Install shower heads that have a switch to shut off water flow while retaining water temperature. This allows tenants to practice good conservation habits, while you save money by reducing water usage. Tenants may wish to upgrade to a shower head that filters out chlorine and other molecules that treat skin and hair harshly. Please be helpful when you receive such a request.

Provide a full range of recycling. Frequently, complaints by neighbors and confusion of tenants comes from the lower level of recycling collection offered by many landlords. Take the opportunity of Earth Day to distribute to your tenants up-to-date information on what materials are collected and how the collection process works for their buildings. (In Minneapolis, landlords are required by city ordinance to provide the same recycling options to tenants as are available to owner-occupied dwellings. In other cities, it is good business practice to provide the same options.) A letter to your service provider expressing your tenants' support for a wide-ranging recycling program would be appreciated.

Battery recycling helps to ensure safe landfills, but also can help to remind tenants to change batteries in their smoke detectors. Functioning smoke detectors protect your investments. (Recently, Minneapolis' building code was changed to allow battery-powered smoke detectors.)

Consider adding bicycle lockers outside apartment buildings for the use of tenants. Depending upon the number of units in the building and space available, these lockers could be rented at a nominal charge or provided free as part of the rental contract. With parking space being among the top reasons cited by opponents to residential rentals, promoting bicycles instead of automobiles can improve relations with neighbors. It also reduces urban air pollution and noise, which are among the top reasons tenants leave. Although most communities have zoning rules that require a certain number of parking spaces per living unit, most buildings have empty pavement from an excess of parking room. As a property owner, you can ask that a waiver be granted to convert automobile parking to bicycle parking. As tenants, we can support your official request. In addition, both of us can request our elected officials to reduce the zoning requirement for parking to promote the use of bicycles and pedestrian traffic. Bicycle racks for guests would be another improvement.

Do not forget about the Earth when arranging for outside maintenance. Reduce or eliminate the use of pesticides by using native plants in your yards. Reduce noise and air pollution by switching to an electric or rotary lawn mower, especially if the yard area of the property is small. Keep weeds pulled and away from sidewalks and buildings not only for the visual appeal, but also to reduce asthma attacks and remove criminal hiding places by ground-level windows. Think now about how clean the sidewalks, porches, and steps were during the past winter. Apartment buildings that provide tenants a pleasant option to walk to stores, to recreational areas, and to work are viewed positively by tenants and neighbors, reducing tenant turnover and increasing property values. If your building is large or is on or near a busy corner, consider placing a