McCain's YouTube Problem Just Became a Nightmare

A good synopsis (imo) of his bleak record.

The guy I want isn't on the ballot. It doesn't matter anyway because in the presidential election, my vote doesn't count. South Dakota will likely go to McCain and he's the last person I would have voted for.

So, to make a long story short, I'm going to write in who I would have voted for!

Shakin my Head

It's no wonder that I am sceptical about the longevity of the human condition. Please allow me to explain.

It has been proven several times in our history (both written and in lore), that a peacefule society that is balanced in resources is the most enduring. But as history also notes, humans have been incapable, thus far, in doing so. We are inherently greedy, vindictive, and violent.

I also shake my head because we have the capacity to annihilate ourselves as we have never before to end life as we know it. And yet, we are unable to change. Because we are inherently greedy, vindictive, and violent.

You see, it takes an effort to choose good and be good. Really not much of one, but effort nonetheless. Evil is simple; it is practiced without effort. And I mean evil to be include those who practice the art of greed and violence. One must choose NOT to act malevolently.

Even neglecting to attempt to contemplate the possibility that your actions could have a negative impact on another is far more common than exhibiting regard for others.

If we allow others to act in this manner, without retribution, then we will destroy our global civilization and either start from the basics, or not begin again at all. I'm really starting to believe that it will be the latter.

Sometimes, I just shake my head.

Family First

I'm sure this has probably already been mentioned but this particular situation boils down to a basic premise here: family first. As a parent we do have certain responsibilities that take precedence over others and, imo, family comes first over 'career', otherwise don't have children.

This is an obvious infraction of common sense and raising her children with honesty and an open mind. Sex education isn't about "abstinence only" aka "don't ask, don't tell". As adults whether we like it or not, are responsible for giving our children ALL of the information as we know it and teach them how to make wise decisions. That requires BEING THERE!

Country first? It's starts in the home.

Then, if that isn't enough, the last thing a sane, caring parent would want is a shotgun wedding for her daughter, especially to a young man who is clearly not mature enough to handle this situation in privacy let alone across the pages of our history books.

It's really not about the pregnancy, it's about how Sarah (you know, the parent?) is dealing with it now, and it doesn't really look good to me! Five children? I have a strong suspicion this 17 year old has been raising her siblings for some time. And a special needs infant? Ummm....that requires some dedicated parenting from BOTH parents! And just where is hubby in all of this? But, I digress...

What have we come to? Who's business is it really? Again, imo, if a situation doesn't directly affect you, and that situation is between two (or more) consenting adults, or parents of 'wayward' children who must help guide them to become sensible adults, it's really non of your business. I don't even care if you're trying to get a little in a bathroom stall! (I do draw a serious line at any direct/indirect solicitation or impact on minor and/or dependent children). Or someone who had an extra-martial affair? That really should have stayed within the bounds of those who were affected.

But again, I digress.

Simply: family first.

Chalabi Aide Arrested on Suspicion of Baghdad Bombings

You remember Chalabi, don't you? This article will bring you up to speed on this gem. I think this ol' boy is gonna be like a bad penny that keeps showing up. What do you think?

Stunning Advance Allows for 'Reprogramming' of Adult Cells

Interesting. I can't help but wonder, though, if this isn't trading one set of problems for another. I'm thinking the insulin production won't matter much if food absorption is decreased. There are potentially other deficiencies in this exchange resulting in negative side effects. It remains to be seen.

read more | digg story

Unpublished Letter to the Editor

Orange County California Newspaper

This is a very good letter to the editor. This woman made some good
points. For some reason, people have difficulty structuring their
arguments when arguing against supporting the currently proposed
immigration revisions. This lady made the argument pretty simple. NOT
printed in the Orange County Paper.........

Newspapers simply won't publish letters to the editor which they either
deem politically incorrect (read below) or which does not agree with the
philosophy they're pushing on the public. This woman wrote a great
letter to the editor that should have been published; but, with your
help it will get published via cyberspace!

From: 'David LaBonte'

My wife, Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the OC
Register which, of course, was not printed. So, I decided to 'print' it
myself by sending it out on the Internet. Pass it along if you feel so
inclined. Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in
the Orange County Register:

Dear Editor:

So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is
made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down
the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren't being
treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other
ports of entry.

Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like
Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of
immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas
of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and
stand in a long line in New York and be documented . Some would even get
down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to
uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times.
They made learning English a primary rule in their new American
households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new
home.

They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a
new life and did everything in their power to help their children
assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No free
lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were
the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a
future of prosperity.

Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My
father fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from
Germany , Italy , France and Japan . None of these 1st generation
Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had
come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the
Emperor of Japan . They were defending the United States of America as
one people.

When we liberated France , no one in those villages were looking for the
French-American or the German American or the Irish American. The people
of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented
one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about
picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they
were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed
so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an
American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.

And here we are in 2008 with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same
rights and privileges, only they want to achieve it by playing with a
different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a
guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I'm sorry, that's
not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants
who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that
for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations
to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching
for a better life I think they would be appalled that they are being
used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.

And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty , it
happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration
bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.

(signed) Rosemary LaBonte

(email from my mom. thought this deserved e-preservation)

BREAKING: Harriet Miers Must Testify, Judge Says

A federal judge denied the White House's last-ditch attempt block a former aide from testifying before Congress as part of the investigation into the U.S. Attorney scandal. "If the government is trying to run out the clock on the 110th Congress, today's decision suggests that Judge Bates won't let them," said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at

read more | digg story

Oh When Will We Ever Learn

Dear Stephanie, Tim, and John:

What about the Constitution? How about protecting me and my privacy? I am gravely disappointed in lack of representation I have received from you, my legislative leaders. Is it because I am a working mother who can't afford a $6,000 contribution?

Although I have nothing to hide (as opposed to this administration and various corporate beneficiaries) I think my privacy is more important than theirs as it does not mask illegal behavior but can be very personal and controversial at times. The telecommunications corporations including AT&T and Sprint should have known better than blindly cooperate with "federal authorities" without proper legal approval. Ignorance is not a defense. And unfettered access to all digital activity without just supervision should never be considered acceptable!

As a health care professional, if I were to access your personal records without an absolute need to, I could be duly fired and possibly prosecuted. Why is it that corporate entities (and this administration who has instigated this behavior) are allowed to conduct themselves other than what is required of me? We all are equal under the law, are we not?



This is not even close to being a "liberal" (in the 'bad' sense) cause, it is about (the loss of) my Rights! But maybe there's a subtle message here; maybe someone in the 'house' has something on you that you wouldn't want known, or maybe you're just easily bought.

Jal Aviv; an example of what to believe

I received an e-mail about impending terrorism predicted by Jal Aviv. It goes something like this: a former Isreali intelligence officer/body guard who has 'recently' (2004) written a book about self-preservation and has predicted various terrorists acts (ie., London bombing, 2005) of which were on Fox News.

OK, there's already a couple of things that are loose cannons here; the possibility of trying to drum up attention to sell the book and unsubstantiated predictions made on Fox News. If this guy really is an intelligence officer, there's no way he could make Fox News any smarter! He should know that!

One of the 'articles' I did find on Fox Fan Central (does not have a date stamp so I cannot confirm when this was posted) does have some good points. Even Fox. That doesn't imply that all of them are good, however!

But lest I digress. I think that we are gullible until we realize that we can easily be taken. With anything, we need to utilize critical thinking skills to determine what pieces of information seem plausible (or logical) and which ones don't.

Anyway. Have a good discerning day!

McNotes from Around the Web

Lieberman coughs up:

Senator McCain knows the sacrifices that our men and women in uniform make, and the burden that their families bear. And it really is wrong to suggest otherwise... from his own service and incarceration...

I sure wish he'd act like it. From what I can see he could care less about our veterans, active service personnel, or the American People.

_______

You can't make this stuff up!. I've tried to pull up the comments from the actual store site but haven't succeeded yet. They're the best part!

_______

Impeach Now!

Another heartfelt thanks to Dennis Kucinich for presenting the Articles of Impeachment and applause to Keith Olbermann for being one of the very few 'news'casters for following up on it:



Here is another, more comprehensive, reference page. There are links to the actual Articles and where you can contact various political officials.

Let's quit denying the Elephant in the Room! Support Dennis! Be the American that believes in the Constitution in which we are all equal under Its laws! No one is above the law, even this president and his administration past and present.


House of Representatives, Committee of the Judiciary:

Please address the Articles of Impeachment that is currently before you (again Richard Cheney) and those which will be coming before you (competent leadership willing).

Please act on behalf of the American People and hold those accountable who have willfully neglected to fulfill their oath of office and violated the laws of this great nation.

Bill Moyer, My Hero

Kucinich and Articles of Impeachment

Madam Pelosi:

As a citizen of the United States, I am humbly requesting that you support Dennis Kucinich's efforts in advancing Articles of Impeachment against George Bush.

It is time that this administration be held responsible for their grossly negligent and criminal conduct while serving the highest office(s) of our country. Now, more than ever, accountability and justice needs to prevail to begin to heal our wounded citizens and reputation.

cc: Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D) SD


You, too, may offer support to Dennis Kucinich here. Use Parma (OH), 44129 for town and zip code unless you live in his district.

Good luck, Dennis.

Stephanie? Tom? John? Leaders of this Great Nation, Are you listening?

About that Debate!

"From 1972 onward, Republicans have successfully deployed the trope of “élitism” against every Democratic opponent except the two winners, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. But this year it has been deployed Democrat-on-Democrat, with Hillary Clinton accusing Obama not just of élitism but also of being condescending and demeaning. Obama was not saying that people acquire religious belief on account of worldly troubles. He was saying that when such troubles appear insurmountable the already religious seek comfort and help from a higher power. Hillary Clinton must know this. Surely she remembers that when her husband’s sex scandals threatened the survival of his Presidency and their marriage, the Clintons summoned the clergy (including, by the way, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright). "

"Bitter Patter", Hendrik Hertzberg

from the NewYorker

The Left Has Lost Its Way

Good article, some Great Comments:

By ocjim, April 21 at 8:47 pm
Too Simple
It is too simplified to say that the left has lost its way. Our government operates on the system of good faith. When one of the major parties in this operates will not negotiate or operate in good faith, our whole system is hamstrung. Neo-conservatives have engaged in a scorched earth policy since they gained majority status during the Clinton years. We all should understand that they own the Republican party. And they would rather destroy all vestiges of democracy than to compromise their plutocratic ideology. In such an environment and with inattentive voters, there is no way to do the will of the people.
So to say that the left has lost its way is a narrow explanation for the paralysis of our government. When else in our history have our whole federal government been so inept, so paralyzed, and so self-absorbed. All this because the union is less important than politics and the neocon ideology.

(Personal pondering - isn't one of the basic issues not discussed to any great degree is that our vote really doesn't count? It doesn't matter if I'm democrat, republican, whatever; delegates choose for me. And trust me, they aren't representing my choice! As Cyrena states in one of her responses, we do need election reform. Because it could be construed as taxation without representation. I do not have confidence that I have one reprensentative that has the strength and integrity to truly do their job. We're not talking about moral issues here. We're talking about a constitutional legal/social system which requires equality. EVERYONE'S VOTE SHOULD COUNT! Hand's down I would have voted for Dennis Kucinich.)

By Gmonst, April 21 at 4:57 pm
cut off the nose to spite the face
Let the politicians compromise. This is their job. It is not ours. If the left wants to regain influence in the nation’s political life, it must be willing to walk away from the Democratic Party, even if Barack Obama is the nominee, and back progressive, third-party candidates until the Democrats feel enough heat to adopt our agenda. We must be willing to say no. If not, we become slaves.
Compromise is part of politics on all levels. I question the logic that voting for third party candidates and walking away from the democrats is the way for progressives to gain influence. It seems to me that this will only move progressives farther from the limelight of politics and make them less influential. The time to build a powerful third party is not on the brink of this most important election, but during the off years. Start local and work up from the bottom, winning local elections and then progressively larger until it becomes a major force. It does progressives no good to throw votes away this year and let McCain have the election. It doesn’t seem realistic to think that at this stage we can influence the candidates toward more progressive platforms, and I doubt candidates with much more progressive policy platforms could stand a chance of winning. I think the best course at this time is to get someone like Obama (who is really the most progressive realistic possibility in many years)and then keep applying consistent pressure to adopt more progressive policies. Compromising on electable candidates is not the same as compromising one’s ideals. You can choose to vote for a candidate who gives progressives a friendly ear, or you can be overly idealistic and get nothing.
As for the religious aspects of this article, I am not sure we need more religion in politics. I think the separation of church and state is fundamental to a healthy democracy. That being said, I do think that a strong current of more outspoken liberal/progressive religious thought would be a good thing. After all, most religions stem from teachings of very radical people, very different from the dominate image of a religious person. I think that the religious right have too long dominated politics with the idea that the devoutly religious cannot support progressive candidates, or hold progressive views on issues. I think that the compassionate and thoughtful side of religions need to be promoted more by open-minded, and intelligent religious people. Those sorts of people need to be more outspoken in countering the fundamental religious extremists position that they speak for all religious or spiritual people. I consider myself to be a very spiritual person, and I don’t see the leaders of the religious right as anything more than authoritarian thugs. I am very resentful that their brand of closed-minded, destructive, hateful, and hypocritical religious practice and belief has become the norm of what one thinks of as religious.

By VillageElder, April 21 at 4:51 pm
... I find it shameful that a progressive community is considering either of these candidates. I understand that we have to choose between the lesser of the poisons as a rational look at the choices presented.
Which of these candidates have indicated that the Patriot Act should be revisited? Did I miss something? I have heard no discussion about the restoration of civil and constitutional rights. Have you heard this mentioned in other forums, if so please provide a link so I may share in your enlightenment.
Have you heard any discussion of prosecution of those who have broken federal law? Statutes broken by acknowledgment or treaty by the Senate of these United States? If so please provide a link so I may share in your enlightenment.
We have heard overmuch about the need for faith and guidance by god (Yahweh and Son). I would suggest that you fully read the “Law of Moses” and the actual sayings of “Jesus the Christ”. Their views on the worthiness of the halt lame and cripple are interesting as are the comments about women being raped. (stone them with many stones). Specific quotes can be provided for those who have not studied the myths that have crippled western thought and morality for too long. Yes Maani I can quote your book at length.
Given that the majority of the american public want health care, education, & etc. why do we have dimos without the balls to stand up for this view? If I missed the two corporatist candidates taking these stances please provide the link. The health care plans represented by H & O [sic] fall far short of the desires of the american public and those enjoyed by the rest of the industrialized and some third world countries, e.g., Cuba. Remember those are godless communists and the people of the Christ, that is the Christians, are commanded to care for the poor and needy (Yahweh and Son). Yet the godless corporatists, capitalists would deny health care and life care to the poor halt and infirm in the name of the almighty god and the market.
Can you say bullshit, boys and girls?

I'm glad there were others who took some offense to the 'religious' thing. That's a cheap cop out. The 'religious' leaders have basically been lying to us for years. They demand that you believe in physically impossible (or extremely highly improbable) occurrences as historical fact, otherwise you lack or are without faith and/or will be forever forsaken if you don't believe it. Whatever.

Read the article and responses. They're good.

Has anyone mentioned "Pandora's Box" lately?

Reading this article definitely provides another perspective to the tragedy in Iraq. I really wonder if anyone will be ultimately held responsible?

Sadr’s Dark Warning

Wasn't part of the justification for the invasion to protect and liberate those suffering under Suddam's rule? And doesn't it now appear that we're attacking those very people?

"there is still heavy fighting around Sadr City, a vast impoverished quarter of Baghdad in which some two million people are living.
“I’m giving the last warning and the last word to the Iraqi government,” said Mr. Sadr. “Either it comes to its senses and takes the path of peace ... or it will be [seen as] the same as the previous government [of Saddam Hussein].

The Sadrists see the attack on them as orchestrated by the Badr Organisation, the powerful Shia militia which is allied to the government and many of whose men have joined the Iraqi army and security services. “If they don’t come to their senses and curb the infiltrated militias, we will declare an open war until liberation,” Mr. Sadr said.

We need to get while the gettin's good, so to speak. I pity the next compassionate, ethical administration (is that even a reality?) to try and traverse the horrendous mess this administration has gotten us into.

Ignorance is not bliss.

Does This Surprise You?

While perusing some of the blogs I frequent, and the discussion of "say one thing, do/be another", I just have to wonder if this really surprises anyone? We've been getting this crap in full force since (before) 2000!

Originally coming from the New York Times,

"Supreme Court nominees present themselves one way at confirmation hearings but act differently on the court" in which they are "too carefully packaged and coached on how to duck all of the hard questions", I have to ask, what "hard questions"? When have these lying sob's had to really face (or answer) any hard questions?

Because isn't that what this is all basically about? The proverbial 'blowing sunshine up (some)one's ass' for a job? Telling the 'people' what they want to hear, knowing they have no intention of doing it?

Hello?

From Bush's first campaign, (from before that actually, but that is an entirely similar but different tangent) this has been their standard method of operation! Cheney really wasn't from Wyoming; only has a ranch there (albeit a very beautiful one, I'm sure!); and Bush is far from being a moderate (let alone intelligent)!

But if one needs more references here they are and feel free to add any that were missed! I'm sure the drough is as large as middle eastern oil reserves!

Jus' Tawkin to Muhsef

Luxuria (extravagance, later lust), Gula (gluttony), Avaritia (greed), Acedia (sloth), Ira (wrath), Invidia (envy), and Superbia (pride).

Do these sound familiar? Do you see them practiced on a regular basis by those who are considered the powerful? And isn't it ironic they are the same people who profess the loudest that they are christians?

I'm getting to the point that I don't even like to read the blogs because they enhance my depression. For some time I have decided that I don't like human interaction much simply because the animal is holistically unable to rise above it's base ability to practice evil. I know there are a few (definitely a minority) that make the effort to be better people but it is also a fact that we remember the negative 10 times over the positive.

Which brings me to another troubling reason why I feel resistance to engaging in human interaction to any depth: we are easily manipulated, duped, and otherwise foolishly blinded by said sins. We want to believe that our 'leaders' (be they governmental, business or otherwise) have our best interests at heart. We want to trust that they would not wantonly manipulate information and/or emotions to accommodate their needs but we know different. So we either choose to engage in outright denial or become highly cynical.

I fear that we are seeing the apocalypse of our own making, not one that's supernatural (although that has been one of the best responsibility requsers for 2 millenia). And they involve these simple seven sins.

Eat, drink, and be merry; for tomorrow we die.

Martin Luther King

Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence
By Rev. Martin Luther King 4 April 1967
Speech delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on April 4, 1967, at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York City
[Please put links to this speech on your respective web sites and if possible, place the text itself there. This is the least well known of Dr. King's speeches among the masses, and it needs to be read by all]
http://www.ssc.msu.edu/~sw/mlk/brkslnc.htm
I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. I join with you in this meeting because I am in deepest agreement with the aims and work of the organization which has brought us together: Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam. The recent statement of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: "A time comes when silence is betrayal." That time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.
The truth of these words is beyond doubt but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover when the issues at hand seem as perplexed as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty; but we must move on.
Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation's history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movement well and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us.
Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns this query has often loomed large and loud: Why are you speaking about war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent? Peace and civil rights don't mix, they say. Aren't you hurting the cause of your people, they ask? And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live.
In the light of such tragic misunderstandings, I deem it of signal importance to try to state clearly, and I trust concisely, why I believe that the path from Dexter Avenue Baptist Church -- the church in Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorate -- leads clearly to this sanctuary tonight.
I come to this platform tonight to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation. This speech is not addressed to Hanoi or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia.
Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Neither is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they can play in a successful resolution of the problem. While they both may have justifiable reason to be suspicious of the good faith of the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides.
Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the NLF, but rather to my fellow Americans, who, with me, bear the greatest responsibility in ending a conflict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents.
The Importance of Vietnam
Since I am a preacher by trade, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor -- both black and white -- through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.
Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. So we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would never live on the same block in Detroit. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.
My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettoes of the North over the last three years -- especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected and angry young men I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they asked -- and rightly so -- what about Vietnam? They asked if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.
For those who ask the question, "Aren't you a civil rights leader?" and thereby mean to exclude me from the movement for peace, I have this further answer. In 1957 when a group of us formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto: "To save the soul of America." We were convinced that we could not limit our vision to certain rights for black people, but instead affirmed the conviction that America would never be free or saved from itself unless the descendants of its slaves were loosed completely from the shackles they still wear. In a way we were agreeing with Langston Hughes, that black bard of Harlem, who had written earlier:
O, yes,I say it plain,America never was America to me,And yet I swear this oath--America will be!
Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that America will be are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.
As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me in 1964; and I cannot forget that the Nobel Prize for Peace was also a commission -- a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for "the brotherhood of man." This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances, but even if it were not present I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I am speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the good news was meant for all men -- for Communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and for white, for revolutionary and conservative? Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the one who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them? What then can I say to the "Vietcong" or to Castro or to Mao as a faithful minister of this one? Can I threaten them with death or must I not share with them my life?
Finally, as I try to delineate for you and for myself the road that leads from Montgomery to this place I would have offered all that was most valid if I simply said that I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be a son of the living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood, and because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned especially for his suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them.
This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation's self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy, for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.
Strange Liberators
And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond to compassion my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them too because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries.
They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1945 after a combined French and Japanese occupation, and before the Communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony.
Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not "ready" for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination, and a government that had been established not by China (for whom the Vietnamese have no great love) but by clearly indigenous forces that included some Communists. For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.
For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam.
Before the end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of the reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization.
After the French were defeated it looked as if independence and land reform would come again through the Geneva agreements. But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modern dictators -- our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly routed out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords and refused even to discuss reunification with the north. The peasants watched as all this was presided over by U.S. influence and then by increasing numbers of U.S. troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictatorships seemed to offer no real change -- especially in terms of their need for land and peace.
The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept and without popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received regular promises of peace and democracy -- and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us -- not their fellow Vietnamese --the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move or be destroyed by our bombs. So they go -- primarily women and children and the aged.
They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals, with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one "Vietcong"-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them -- mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children, degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers.
What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these voiceless ones?
We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation's only non-Communist revolutionary political force -- the unified Buddhist church. We have supported the enemies of the peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men. What liberators?
Now there is little left to build on -- save bitterness. Soon the only solid physical foundations remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call fortified hamlets. The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds as these? Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These too are our brothers.
Perhaps the more difficult but no less necessary task is to speak for those who have been designated as our enemies. What of the National Liberation Front -- that strangely anonymous group we call VC or Communists? What must they think of us in America when they realize that we permitted the repression and cruelty of Diem which helped to bring them into being as a resistance group in the south? What do they think of our condoning the violence which led to their own taking up of arms? How can they believe in our integrity when now we speak of "aggression from the north" as if there were nothing more essential to the war? How can they trust us when now we charge them with violence after the murderous reign of Diem and charge them with violence while we pour every new weapon of death into their land? Surely we must understand their feelings even if we do not condone their actions. Surely we must see that the men we supported pressed them to their violence. Surely we must see that our own computerized plans of destruction simply dwarf their greatest acts.
How do they judge us when our officials know that their membership is less than twenty-five percent Communist and yet insist on giving them the blanket name? What must they be thinking when they know that we are aware of their control of major sections of Vietnam and yet we appear ready to allow national elections in which this highly organized political parallel government will have no part? They ask how we can speak of free elections when the Saigon press is censored and controlled by the military junta. And they are surely right to wonder what kind of new government we plan to help form without them -- the only party in real touch with the peasants. They question our political goals and they deny the reality of a peace settlement from which they will be excluded. Their questions are frighteningly relevant. Is our nation planning to build on political myth again and then shore it up with the power of new violence?
Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition.
So, too, with Hanoi. In the north, where our bombs now pummel the land, and our mines endanger the waterways, we are met by a deep but understandable mistrust. To speak for them is to explain this lack of confidence in Western words, and especially their distrust of American intentions now. In Hanoi are the men who led the nation to independence against the Japanese and the French, the men who sought membership in the French commonwealth and were betrayed by the weakness of Paris and the willfulness of the colonial armies. It was they who led a second struggle against French domination at tremendous costs, and then were persuaded to give up the land they controlled between the thirteenth and seventeenth parallel as a temporary measure at Geneva. After 1954 they watched us conspire with Diem to prevent elections which would have surely brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a united Vietnam, and they realized they had been betrayed again.
When we ask why they do not leap to negotiate, these things must be remembered. Also it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva agreements concerning foreign troops, and they remind us that they did not begin to send in any large number of supplies or men until American forces had moved into the tens of thousands.
Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the president claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made. Ho Chi Minh has watched as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now he has surely heard of the increasing international rumors of American plans for an invasion of the north. He knows the bombing and shelling and mining we are doing are part of traditional pre-invasion strategy. Perhaps only his sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor weak nation more than eight thousand miles away from its shores.
At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless on Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called enemy, I am as deeply concerned about our troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy and the secure while we create hell for the poor.
This Madness Must Cease
Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours.
This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words:
"Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the heart of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism."
If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. It will become clear that our minimal expectation is to occupy it as an American colony and men will not refrain from thinking that our maximum hope is to goad China into a war so that we may bomb her nuclear installations. If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horribly clumsy and deadly game we have decided to play.
The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways.
In order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war. I would like to suggest five concrete things that our government should do immediately to begin the long and difficult process of extricating ourselves from this nightmarish conflict:
End all bombing in North and South Vietnam.
Declare a unilateral cease-fire in the hope that such action will create the atmosphere for negotiation.
Take immediate steps to prevent other battlegrounds in Southeast Asia by curtailing our military buildup in Thailand and our interference in Laos.
Realistically accept the fact that the National Liberation Front has substantial support in South Vietnam and must thereby play a role in any meaningful negotiations and in any future Vietnam government.
Set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from Vietnam in accordance with the 1954 Geneva agreement.
Part of our ongoing commitment might well express itself in an offer to grant asylum to any Vietnamese who fears for his life under a new regime which included the Liberation Front. Then we must make what reparations we can for the damage we have done. We most provide the medical aid that is badly needed, making it available in this country if necessary.
Protesting The War
Meanwhile we in the churches and synagogues have a continuing task while we urge our government to disengage itself from a disgraceful commitment. We must continue to raise our voices if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative means of protest possible.
As we counsel young men concerning military service we must clarify for them our nation's role in Vietnam and challenge them with the alternative of conscientious objection. I am pleased to say that this is the path now being chosen by more than seventy students at my own alma mater, Morehouse College, and I recommend it to all who find the American course in Vietnam a dishonorable and unjust one. Moreover I would encourage all ministers of draft age to give up their ministerial exemptions and seek status as conscientious objectors. These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.
There is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter the struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing. The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality we will find ourselves organizing clergy- and laymen-concerned committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy. Such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.
In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which now has justified the presence of U.S. military "advisors" in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counter-revolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Colombia and why American napalm and green beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru. It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken -- the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investment.
I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. n the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life's roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say: "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.
America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.
This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against communism. War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons. Let us not join those who shout war and through their misguided passions urge the United States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations. These are days which demand wise restraint and calm reasonableness. We must not call everyone a Communist or an appeaser who advocates the seating of Red China in the United Nations and who recognizes that hate and hysteria are not the final answers to the problem of these turbulent days. We must not engage in a negative anti-communism, but rather in a positive thrust for democracy, realizing that our greatest defense against communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with positive action seek to remove thosse conditions of poverty, insecurity and injustice which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism grows and develops.
The People Are Important
These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression and out of the wombs of a frail world new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. "The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light." We in the West must support these revolutions. It is a sad fact that, because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch anti-revolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has the revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgement against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores and thereby speed the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and every moutain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight and the rough places plain."
A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.
This call for a world-wide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all men. This oft misunderstood and misinterpreted concept -- so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force -- has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Moslem-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John:
Let us love one another; for love is God and everyone that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. If we love one another God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day. We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says : "Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word."
We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity. The "tide in the affairs of men" does not remain at the flood; it ebbs. We may cry out deperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is deaf to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residue of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: "Too late." There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on..." We still have a choice today; nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation.
We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world -- a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act we shall surely be dragged down the long dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.
Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter -- but beautiful -- struggle for a new world. This is the callling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message, of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.
As that noble bard of yesterday, James Russell Lowell, eloquently stated:
Once to every man and nationComes the moment to decide,In the strife of truth and falsehood,For the good or evil side;Some great cause, God's new Messiah,Off'ring each the bloom or blight,And the choice goes by foreverTwixt that darkness and that light.
Though the cause of evil prosper,Yet 'tis truth alone is strong;Though her portion be the scaffold,And upon the throne be wrong:Yet that scaffold sways the future,And behind the dim unknown,Standeth God within the shadowKeeping watch above his own.
[Messages on BRC-NEWS may be forwarded and cross-posted, as long as proper attribution is given to the author and originating publication (including the email address and any copyright notices), and the wording is not altered in any way, other than for formatting.
As a courtesy, when you cross-post or forward, we'd appreciate it if you mention that you received the info via the BRC-NEWS list. Thank you.]

Does Impeachment Sound Remotely Familiar to You?

When, oh when will our legislators seriously consider impeachment? I know, like never! What a travesty of our government to not hold this administration accountable for their destruction of practically everything we hold dear: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I sound like a broken record. But I have found the truth to a philosophical question. Our 'elected leaders' can not hear the cry of reason in the forest of their constituents. They believe corporations to be of far greater value than those of us who work for a living, praying that we won't lose our job or become seriously ill just to make ends meet in the good ol' U. S. of A.

One example, gas prices. Who's reaping the monetary benefits here? Does Bush and Cheney (among many) ring a bell? How about those 'few good men' who participated in various extra-special private energy meetings shortly after these (uhhhhhmmmmm) 'corporate players' took office? You remember: The National Energy Policy Development Group, better known as the "Cheney Energy Task Force" ?

Here's a great excerpt from Truthout.org summarizing the group for those of us who forgot or didn't know in the first place:

BACKGROUND ON TASK FORCE

On January 29, 2001 President Bush signed a memorandum to Vice President Cheney, commissioning the National Energy Policy Development Group, better known as the "Cheney Energy Task Force." The membership of the Energy Task Force included the Vice President as chair, Andrew Lundquist as executive director, and the Secretaries of Energy, Commerce, Transportation, Interior, Agriculture, Treasury, and the EPA Administrator. The Task Force held its first meeting that same day, and held at least eight additional meetings between February and May of 2001. On May 16, 2001, the Energy Task Force submitted a report to President Bush, setting forth the committee's findings and recommendations for a "National Energy Policy." Congress currently is considering legislation based on the Administration's energy policy.
According to media accounts, a parade of CEOs and other business leaders from the energy industry participated in the Task Force's work. Media accounts also suggest that the final findings and recommendations of the Energy Task Force were heavily influenced by the participation of the energy industry leaders, with some parts of the policy taking passages verbatim from industry proposals.

Requests for Information Unsuccessful

Throughout 2001, and continuing to the present, Congressional leaders and the General Accounting Office (GAO) have tried with little success to find out what went on in these secretive meetings. Representatives Henry Waxman and John Dingell, GAO Comptroller General David Walker and GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa have corresponded numerous times with Vice President Cheney, Task Force Director Lundquist, and Counsel to the Vice President David Addington but have not received substantive responses. This past fall, Sierra Club lawyers sent requests for information under Freedom of Information Act and Federal Advisory Committee Act to Vice President Cheney, Lundquist, and the agency heads listed as defendants.
"We have yet to receive even the most basic information about the energy task force, like who it met with and what documents it received," Rep. Dingell wrote in the New York Times ("Who Helped Cheney," Jan. 24, 2002). "The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that meetings of nongovernmental advisers be conducted in public, just to avoid the appearance of secret favoritism."

Exxon, among those who participated, has seen record profits during this administration and inception of their 'energy plan' to the detriment of the American people.

And don't even get me started on Iraq!

A Portion of the Mortgage Crisis Pie

I know that there are a multitude of situations factoring into the mortgage crisis, below being one of them. One issue we have failed to admit and confront in a comprehensive manner is the fact that we have run amok in our greed and "gotta have it now" mentality. This issue will come up again as many begin to default on their credit card payments and max out on their limits. Strap yourself in, folks, we're in for one hell of a long and bumpy economic ride.


Few Cheers for Mortgage Bailout
By Froma Harrop

The woman choking up on "Lou Dobbs Tonight" is about to lose her home. Heather DiStefano said that she and her husband can't hack monthly mortgage payments that have nearly tripled in three years to $3,100 from $1,300. And with falling house prices, they owe more on their Worcester, Mass., home than it's worth.
Then you learn that the couple had bought the $306,000 house on a household income of only $79,000. You see that it is big, and wince at the heating costs. And you note that life hadn't thrown this family any curveballs — no job losses or unexpected medical crises — that would have driven them under. The ballooning payments were spelled out in their mortgage contract. What was this couple thinking?
They weren't thinking, along with millions of others who signed onto loan agreements they had no hope of meeting. Sad cases most of them, but must we taxpayers subsidize their folly? My hand isn't shooting up.
Nor are a lot of other hands. City and state programs aimed at helping people avoid foreclosure are getting decidedly mixed views.
In Seattle, for example, a small program offering $5,000 loans to keep a few homeowners in their houses has set off a round of loud complaints. If this is happening in liberal Seattle, Democrats in Washington had better be cautious: Taxpayer-funded rescues of the reckless are not an easy sell.
Many Americans who borrow carefully, live modestly or rent while saving up for a house resent being asked to subsidize irresponsible borrowers. Programs that keep these risky mortgages afloat also save the skins of the companies that made a fortune off of them. That's the most objectionable part.
There are ways to ease the pain. The most prudent item in the Senate Democrats' "foreclosure prevention" bill is the $200 million for counseling services.
Counselors can help borrowers renegotiate complicated loan agreements with lenders (who may be hard to find). This humane approach would assist those on the edge but does not dump bad loans onto the taxpayers' shoulders.
Another good idea is letting bankruptcy judges change the terms of mortgages. Seems only fair. Judges already have the power to restructure loans for pleasure boats and vacation homes.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has rightly condemned many of the big mortgage-rescue plans as "bailouts" for lenders, investors and speculators. So what if the housing crisis forces some banks out business, as Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke predicts. Let 'em rip, we say.
Where the Bush administration deserves shame and blame is in its failure to regulate the mortgage market. Worse, it stopped states from using their own laws to stem the abuses.
To protect aggressive lenders, the administration had an obscure federal agency, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, block predatory lending laws passed by the states. (The agency cited a dusty clause in the 1863 National Bank Act.) In other words, the states were forbidden to protect borrowers.
"The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented," writes New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, "that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules."
This mortgage crisis resembles a case of the flu. You want to do everything you can to feel better, but ultimately, it has to run its course. As real estate values go down, housing becomes more affordable, and buyers will appear.
Regulations would help inoculate the public against the future excesses of nasty lenders and borrowers who don't think. That's the way to go. Handing the clean-up job to the responsible bystanders, on the other hand, doesn't seem very fair.
To find out more about Froma Harrop, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL CO.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Phone Conversations

Long time no see! The Phone, it's the next best thing to being there!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JyfBFz9X54