Talking Politics

Old white women for Obama

Once the media gets a story line, they just won't let it go. So I constantly read that older folks support Clinton. At 58, I should certainly fall in that demographic. Women, they say, overwhelmingly back Clinton. I am also a woman. Since I haven't finished college, despite several stints in higher education, and fall at the lower end of the middle class based on income, I shouldn't be an Obama supporter. But I am.

I am an Obama supporter because he is bringing young people into the political process, and I happen to believe that old saw that the young are the future of our country. And the Obama campaign is opening up the political process to everybody in some important ways. For funding, they're largely relying on a million small donors. For campaign infrastructure, they've built a truly impressive grassroots machine. Both give ordinary voters a stake in politics and in their government. Ordinary voters of all ages.

If we are ever to wrest control of our government away from monied special interests, I believe it is essential that more of us get involved in politics and in our government. So, frankly, Senator Obama could be a little green man from Mars as far as I'm concerned. As long as he's doing the essential work that paves the way for this country to again have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people--this old white woman will buck the media storyline and support him.

The GOP brings the Spanish Inquisition to the U.S.

The first recorded use of the torture technique now known as waterboarding, was during the Spanish Inquisition. With the possible exception of the Pope and Catholic College of Cardinals, few today would deny that the main purpose of the Inquisition was to torture suspected heretics. In subsequent centuries, military figures caught using the technique were tried and convicted of torture. Not "enhanced interrogation techniques"--but torture. It is illegal under international law and treaty. It is also illegal under U.S. law. A Texas sheriff was convicted of using it on prisoners when George W. Bush was governor of the state. Surely he and our former attorney general, who used to serve on the Texas Supreme Court, must have known of the case.

And yet, they approved its use. I cannot believe they did it because they did not know it was torture--and therefore illegal. They did it because they do not care. They did it because they do not believe that the law applies equally to them. They cannot conceive that it would ever be applied to them. I'm sure most Nazi strongmen thought the same.

But we have given George W. Bush cause to believe this. The Senate seems set to approve his newest nominee for attorney general--a man who will not state the long-established legal view that waterboarding is torture. Congress has rolled over and played dead for him for years, finally overturning his veto, for the first time, on a relatively insignificant water bill. And the American people voted for him in sufficient numbers that he was able to steal elections twice with vote rigging in just one large state each time.

Yes the Bush administration is guilty of torture. But, like the Germans under Hitler, we are guilty of letting him. History will judge us no less harshly.

The Bush Doctrine

Monroe had his, and Bush has his. But Monroe was a little more upfront about his. While Americans have been trying to figure out exactly what Bush's is for six years. Here's my take on it.

Recently The New Yorker published an article by Seymour Hirsch called "The Administration's plan for Iran."

And, here, in the very last line of the article, we see the administration's plan for the whole Middle East:

    Brzezinski said that Iran would likely react to an American attack "by intensifying the conflict in Iraq and also     in Afghanistan, their neighbors, and that could draw in Pakistan. We will be stuck in a regional war for             twenty years."

It has several "advantages" for Republicans and big Republican donors:
1. By creating wars in other oil-rich nations, it artificially boosts the price of Saudi, British, and U.S. oil. Oil companies like this because they make more money. If, by some chance, we win any of these wars, they'll still make money by being able to drill whatever countries we manage to conquer.

2. By creating never-ending wars in the Middle East, we create the need for an arms race in the region. Since weapons are virtually the only thing the U.S. still exports, we can sell arms to countries in this region. Defense contractors also make money by replacing all the equipment we're destroying in these endless wars, and by providing contractors at hugely inflated rates compared to what we pay regular service personnel.

3. By spending vast amounts of money on these wars and cutting taxes on the rich, we bleed the federal government of funds that could otherwise be spent on healthcare, education, social security, welfare, consumer protection, disaster preparedness and recovery, and other programs the GOP doesn't like. These services can then be provided by corporations, which the GOP does like, with little regulation because they've gutted the regulatory agencies.

4. Because the country is now on a permanent wartime footing, the administration and the conservative judges they've appointed for life, now have an excuse to ignore the Constitution and abrogate our civil rights. We now do the things we accuse North Korea and the Junta in Burma of doing (except for the killing monks and dumping their bodies in the jungle--we hire Blackwater to do that in Iraq and South America). And they've managed to frighten Congress and the media into backing this and covering it up because they'd be disloyal and soft on terror if they don't.

And, this, my friends, is the real administration plan. Not just for Iran, but for all of us. If you're not happy about it, you need to speak out--loudly and often. Never think it does no good. As the monks in Burma know, if enough of us do it for long enough, we finally get heard. It isn't easy, but then democracy isn't. After all, it can't be a government of the people if the people give up on it. 

Gonzales is gone, but the problems remain

I've received no fewer than six self-congratulatory emails today--most with subject lines like "We did it! Gonzales is gone." As much as I dislike what he did, I fail to see cause for all this jubilation.

Our attorney general was a toady. And the people who played the tune he danced to are still in office. The problems they created still exist. The civil rights and liberties we've lost are still gone. Investigations into what they did and how have just scratched the surface. And while Gonzales was a transparent--and so largely ineffective--liar when he was in office, his political masters no doubt hope distance from D.C. will make him a tougher, or at least less attractive target. It worked with Harriet the thinking goes. Maybe we can do the same with Karl and Alberto. Just get them out of town and the furor dies down.

Unfortunately, they may be right. I hope not. If so, it sends a horrible message that our government officials can ignore their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and do so with impunity. If true, never doubt that public officials will duly note and take advantage of that for years to come. If we do not stand for the rule of law now, and apply those laws equally, we may find ourselves unable to do it later.

A bridge too far

An unknown number of people died when a bridge over the Mississippi River collapsed this week. While the loss of life was tragic, what made it even worse is that it was all about money. Republican politicians would have you believe that they can just keep cutting taxes with no consequences. But the people in Minneapolis now know better. It was, however, an expensive lesson in many ways.

The New York Times put it this way, "A steam pipe explodes near Grand Central Terminal, a levee fails and floods New Orleans, a bridge collapses in Minneapolis.

These disasters are an indication that this country is not investing enough in keeping its vital infrastructure in good repair, engineering experts warn.

'Governments do not want to pay for maintenance because it is not sexy,' said John Ochsendorf, a structural engineer and an associate professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

He said the bulk of the nation’s highway system was built in the 1950s and 1960s and is ageing. Referring to the collapse in Minneapolis, he said 'This type of event could become more common.'"

The highway system was built in the 50s and 60s because governments then recognized the value of public infrastructure. They realized that a robust economy depends on a modern transit and communications infrastructure, and they were willing to raise and spend taxes to build them. They were willing to invest in the country's future.

But no more. Republican donors tend to live in gated communities with private services. They send their children to private schools, and can afford private health insurance. They may even have a private jet. They seem to believe they can remain in their private world forever and not have to worry about the decline in public services. They're wrong. Eventually, they too have to drive to their jet on the potholed roads, across the crumbling bridges. They rely on public services too numerous to count to run their businesses--from railroads and airports to electrical grids and telephone systems. And they need to be willing to pay for them.

Maybe the Republican governor of Minnesota will reconsider his ill-advised tax cuts before more people die. At least I hope so.

Sick solutions for our sicko healthcare system

According to the Kaiser Foundation, the average premium for individual health insurance costs about US$150 per month in the United States. A typical plan with a premium in this range often includes a deductible varying from $1,000 to $5,000. In addition, patients generally have to shell out “co-payments” varying from 10 per cent to 30 per cent of the cost of any given treatment. The average premium under an employer-based group insurance plan in the U.S. in 2005 was US$335 per month. These plans are also subject to limitations.

And that's the average cost. As you get older, your premium category rises every 5 years. Not because you're sick, or have any claims, just because you're older--trust me on this. I'm now paying a bit over $300 a month for major medical with no dental or vision. They can still decline to pay for any treatment they want to, as shown in Sicko. And they can cancel me whenever they want to--which I suspect would happen if I started to make a lot of claims.

Canada’s universal health insurance system costs the government about $183 a month per person (or US$160), and the “premiums” are collected through the tax system.

I've heard plenty of stories of rationed care in Canada and the UK, and of people having to wait for treatment considered non-essential. When I was in Scotland, my driver told me people in emergency rooms often have to wait a long time because everyone is so casual about going that they're very overcrowded. But the funny thing was that he assumed that I, as a tourist, should go see a doctor for a bad cough. It never occurred to him that I wouldn't or couldn't.

Those systems are not perfect. I read the British press online every morning, and there are plenty of problems with the National Health Service. But nobody is talking about scrapping it, just demanding it be fixed. I've also read about patients fighting to get the NHS to cover new drug treatments that are not currently on the list--sort of like fighting an HMO for treatment. They don't all win in either case.

But, in any system that is based on universal insurance coverage--rather than single-payer healthcare--the insurance companies have a profit motive to deny us care. That includes most of the proposals by Democratic presidential candidates and our own dear governor Schwarzenegger. As long as "cancer is a profit center"--as John Stewart put it, Americans will continue to suffer and die needlessly to make money for others. It should be a crime.

Friend or foe?

Reuters News Service is reporting today that U.S. troops have killed 6 Iraqi police and an Iraqi reporter for the New York Times. It is not the first time our troops have killed reporters or people who were supposedly on our side. In fact, journalists have accused U.S. troops of targeting them. The military always promises to investigate. The result is always the same: It was a tragic accident.

But the report, a portion of which appears below, raises a multitude of questions. Should we be conducting raids when we can't tell friend from foe? Can we ever tell when militia members seem to infiltrate Iraqi police, government, and military at every level? Is aerial bombardment appropriate for the middle of a densely populated city? Will it work against the type of guerilla raids we're seeing in Iraq? It never did in Vietnam. I think the answer is no to all of these questions and more. And the Iraqi people are paying the price for our refusal to admit it.

An Iraqi reporter working for the New York Times was also shot dead on his way to work in Baghdad, the newspaper said, a day after two Reuters employees were killed during an incident involving U.S. forces in the city.

Khalid Hassan, 23, was shot in the southern Saidiya district of the capital, the Times said in a statement, adding that the circumstances of the attack were unclear.

A U.S. war plane made an air strike during the raid in mainly Shi'ite east Baghdad after U.S. soldiers came under "heavy and accurate" gunfire from an Iraqi police checkpoint, rooftops and a church, the military said in a statement.

Seven suspected militants were also killed during the clash, in which U.S. soldiers detained an Iraqi police lieutenant on suspicion of planning roadside bomb and mortar attacks on U.S. forces. The military accused him of links with Iranians accused by Washington of fomenting violence in Iraq.

The power of asking

When asked why they don't ask their elected officials for what they want, most people will reply, "Because they won't listen." Of course, email and online petitions have made it easier to ask. So more and more people are. But most still suspect nobody is listening.

It is true that an online petition doesn't have the impact of an in-person appeal. For this reason, many online groups like MoveOn, True Majority, and Democracy for America are also organizing visits to representatives' offices. Groups are also asking constituents to make phone calls because they know something we should all be aware of--the more time you take in your communication, the more weight it carries with your representative. An email is like junk mail. A phone call is one step up. A hand-written letter adds one more notch.

But, if you really want to be heard, show up. Almost all representatives at all levels of government hold office hours where they will talk to constituents. You may need an appointment, and it never hurts to go with a group of like-minded citizens. I once did exactly that to ask my state Assemblyman to endorse a presidential candidate I was supporting. He said yes. My candidate didn't win, but he got an endorsement because I showed up and asked for it.

Yesterday I wrote that I'd asked congressman Sam Farr why Democrats weren't supporting impeachment for Dick Cheney. That was on Monday. Today, this appeared in a local paper:

Central Coast Rep. Sam Farr has joined a small group of House Democrats seeking the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney over the origins of the Iraq war.

Farr, D-Carmel, quietly this week joined 11 other co-sponsors of a resolution introduced in late April by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, that lays out two articles of impeachment against Cheney.

The measure, HR 433, accuses the vice president of manipulating intelligence and fabricating a threat of weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion of Iraq.

"Many residents in the Central Coast support the removal of Cheney from office, and I am proud to represent their values in Congress," Farr said in a brief statement released Wednesday by his office.

Did my request make a difference? I'll probably never know. But it certainly couldn't have hurt. And it might have helped tip the scales. It certainly helped that about 55 other women indicated their support for my position when I asked the question.

But there was one more thing I'm sure really helped--congressman Farr knows who I am. He knows who I am because he sees me at lots of political events he goes to. Because I'm one of the people who is always there working at events, raising money, making donations, supporting candidates, working for the Party. The other 55 women on that bus on Monday were in the same category. We were all going to a Party fundraiser in San Francisco honoring Nancy Pelosi. We'd paid for the luncheon and bus ride with Sam Farr. We've been around local politics doing the work for years and years. So, when I brought up impeachment, and the other women agreed with me, he listened.

Together, we're worth as much or more than a big corporate donor--because we do more than donate, we work. We need to know that, and to ask for what we want.

High crimes and misdemeanors

There's been even more talk than usual lately about impeaching Dick Cheney--probably because folks feel that, since Libby essentially got off with a slap on the wrist, it's time to go after the real lawbreaker.

Firebrand activists say he lied to Congress, which should surely qualify as a high crime and nobody seems to dispute. And this doesn't begin to touch any involvement he had in outing a covert CIA operative, in illegal wiretaps, in illegal detention and torture, and more we probably haven't heard about yet. Not only is Richard Cheney a danger to our country and people, but he has repeatedly broken the laws of our nation. By not punishing him appropriately, we send a signal to people around the world that we no longer value the rule of law. Because of his disrespect for the laws of our country, and repeated violations of them, there is no other remedy available to us as a people--other than to remove him from the high office he now holds and so disgraces.

I asked a local congressman, Sam Farr, a few days ago, why the Democratic majority in Congress hasn't brought articles of impeachment against Cheney. He gave the, by now, standard response that it would distract Congress from more important issues. I asked what was more important than enforcing the laws of the country and the Constitution--part of the oath every U.S. representative takes when they assume office. He didn't answer.

Talking to a friend who works in D.C. later that day, she repeated the same explanation and added another--that it would take too long and his term would be over by then. So Congress would have taken up a lot of time with no result. I pointed out that a threat of impeachment had been enough to send Spiro Agnew and Richard Nixon packing. She replied, smart young woman that she is, that Agnew and Nixon cared about the impact they had on the future of their Party. Nixon, especially, cared about his legacy. Bush and Cheney do not. They care about the wealthy backers who put them in office, and who will feather their nests when they leave Washington. The only threat that would be meaningful to them would be one to their financial future. Like the cushy deal George H.W. Bush got with the Carlyle Group when he left office, Bush and Cheney stand to make a bundle. Cheney, if nothing else, will rake in a good deal of cash from all the Halliburton stock he still owns. If there's a way Congress could jeopardize that, it might actually be more meaningful to these two crooks than impeachment.