Liberal Bias

Our Energy Crisis is a Crisis of Conscience

2009-12-10T14:08:00.000-08:00

Written By: Sara Ledesma

In Other Words…Our Energy Crisis is a Crisis of Conscience - The energy issue is this country has primarily been framed as one of renewable and green vs. unsustainable and “dirty”. Whichever side of the debate you land on, both exist within an unquestioned paradigm of pay-for-use. Whether your energy comes from windmills, or your local gas and power companies, you are charged by a company that provides that energy to you for a profit. The only alternative to this current structure being solar energy, which has such high installation costs, it is not an option for most households. So the discussion rages on: can coal be a “clean” energy source, is dependence on oil a greater security threat than terrorism, will cap and trade raise energy costs during an already stressed economy, how many jobs will renewable energy create, has oil production reached its peak?

The environmental costs, national security and the economy, dominate the debate. But no one talks about free energy. In fact, I’m sure you never even heard of Nicola Tesla, Steorn Ltd., Brian Appel and his revolutionary facility, or the Lutec company. But not to worry, there is an excellent reason you are uniformed of these visionary engineers and their paradigm shifting, or more aptly, paradigm revolutionizing and restructuring, work in the field of energy. The reason being: they would forever abolish the current system by which oil and energy companies rake in billions to provide you and your family with metered lights, heat and power.

“But nothing is free”, you protest. How could a light cast it’s illuminating glow, how could my TV provide endless content on demand and my computer perform limitless functions on command, and not accrue a monetary balance? Doesn’t this power require lines, laid for miles upon miles, like durable veins pulsating underground, pumping energy into my home? Do these veins not require construction and maintenance and replacing every now and then? Is there not a hub where all this power is generated that directs the flow to every business, agency and home? It must take a battalion of trained workers to deliver the life giving nectar that invigorates our modern appliances and technology, the basis of our modern lives! Surely this energy nucleus that powers entire cities must be expensive to control and maintain? How could anyone get such a thing at no cost?

Ready to be shocked and awed in 3…2...1…the knowledge and technology to transmit free power to every home around the world has existed since before you and I were born. And that’s not all, the technology to run a vehicle motor on only water and to turn garbage and sewage (as in the refuse smothering landfills, polluting our oceans and seeping into our drinking supply) into an energy source is now available…and in use. Generators using magnetic motors, capable of running your household or small business without oil and for a mere fraction of the cost, are available for sale now.

The transmission of wireless energy was the invention of obsessed engineer and genius inventor Nicola Tesla. His inventions are as instrumental to American industrialization as those of Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison. His patented inventions include: remote control and robotics (so ahead of his time it would take decades before people understood how to apply them), AC current (replacing Thomas Edison’s costly DC method and revolutionizing industrialization), cellular technology, x-rays, neon, radio transmission, and the modern motor (still the basis of what we use a hundred years later). Nicola had ideas so visionary and original he would eventually be granted 112 patents.

Nicola Tesla was born in Serbia in 1856. After completing degrees in mechanical and electrical engineering, Tesla worked for electric power companies in Germany and France. At age 28 he jumped the pond to the US to pursue his greatest obsession yet: the wireless transmission of energy.

Tesla began working with Edison, who he hoped could be the one to make his vision a reality. We will never what these two men of genius could have accomplished together, since Edison came to see Tesla as a rival, when Tesla’s AC current replaced his own DC, and kicked Tesla out of his lab.

Tesla dug ditches by day, and created inventions that would help navigate the course of the future, by night. As soon as he was able to secure investors, he was back in the lab full-time.
With the finacial backing of George Westinghouse and his Westinghouse Corporation, Tesla cemented his role in bringing about the industrial revolution in the US. Tesla’s revolutionary AC current design allowed Westinghouse to beat out General Electric (which was utilizing Edison’s costlier DC design) to illuminate the first electrical fair in history, The Chicago World’s Fair of 1893. Twenty seven million people watched Presdient Cleveland illuminate an entire city with the push of one button. Tesla become an instant celebrity among the eductated and elite. He could now secure an investor for his greatest dream, the wireless transmission of energy.

Tesla had a few setbacks, including a lab fire which destroyed most of his work. This allowed Marconi, an Italian engineer working with Edison and backed by the financial support of Andrew Carnegie, to win the race to be the first to transmit and receive signals across the Atlantic ocean. The competive pioneer that he was, Tesla had desired to be the first to transmit a transatlantic signal and make history as the person who created a worldwide communication system. But Tesla was not easily discouraged. He rebuilt his lab and shrugged off Marconi’s triumph by saying: “Marconi is a good fellow. Let him continue. He is using seventeen of my patents.”

From the transmission of that first wireless electrical signal, Tesla made the mental leap to energy, transmitted worldwide, accessible to every househould, free of charge. He needed enough money to build a giant tower capable of generating enough energy to make his dream of free energy to all a reality. He tapped the deep pockets of one J.P. Morgan (even back then the Moragn of today’s Morgan Stanley was running Wall Street). Tesla tantalized Morgan with a grandiose proposal to build a “world system” of wireless communications that would relay news, music, private conversation, secure military communication, up to date stock market reports, and even photos. No doubt Morgan thought it sounded more like science fiction than actual science! Tesla promised Morgan that, “When wireless is fully applied the earth will be converted into a huge brain, capable of response in every one of its parts”. Morgan must have salivated at the potential for global profits generating exponentially.

Tesla, however, had a different vision. He put Morgan’s money to work building a giant tower that would demonstrate electrical transmission without wires, capable of providing unlimited power freely accessible by everyone. Tesla’s tower, named Wardenclyffe, rose 187 feet in the air and held a fifty-five-ton sphere made of steel at the top. Beneath the tower, a 120 foot pipe plunged into the earth. Beyond that, were sixteen iron pipes for currents to pass through and grab hold of the earth. Tesla said his tower would seize the earth “so that the whole of this globe can quiver."

So, why don’t we have free energy today courtesy of a prophetic genius with a dream of using science to help the world? Morgan had no interest in energy he couldn’t meter. Making profits by selling energy had been his entire motive for his investiment. Morgan pulled the plug on Tesla, throwing him into financial ruin. Moragn then went a step further and ensured unlimited energy, free of charge, would never be a reality. By using his far-reaching political and business influence, he black-balled Tesla completely. He crushed Tesla, along with every hope for world-wide, free energy, for all. Not surprisingly, Tesla never recovered. A mental breakdown followed his financial one. One of the greatest, most revolutionary minds of our time died in 1943, nearly penniless. After his death, government officials seized all of Tesla’s research. Morgan’s good friend , J. Edgar Hoover, apparently shared his disinterest in a system of free energy, unmetered by business and unregulated by the government.

If you are a fan of Sci-fi movies or books, then you are already aware of the theory: They who control the energy and natural resources, control the populations of the world. Is it any wonder oil and gas companies have such influence in our government that they have kept us from heading down a more renewable energy source, cheaper, cleaner and more stable than the status quo? How amazing would it be if we could power a car motor on nothing but water? At least until water becomes so scarce that we begin to support repressive regimes, fight endless wars and spend billions of dollars to procure a steady supply, it would be a perfect solution. Right now water is abundant, it comes out of our taps, and has an efficient delivery system that is already in use.

Next shocking twist coming your way now…since 1988 water-powered motors have existed.
Stan Meyers created his water powered motor and probably expected to be the next Edison. Instead, he was to be the next Tesla. Once the local media covered his invention Stan was contacted by the Pentagon. Stan was told they were sending out a Colonel to look at his motor because they were interested in possibly using his technology to run their tanks. Being the dutiful American Stan was, he welcomed the military. Stan must have swollen with pride to imagine his technology helping the brave soldiers fighting for the country he loved. After the meeting, Stan Meyers was no longer able to secure any funding for his motors. Hmmmm.

The history of science is riddled with examples of alternative science and medicine being co-opted when they threaten the status quo. The history of politics is ripe with examples of policy being directed by corporate interests and intelligence agencies serving their own agendas with the powers they are bestowed in order to protect and serve. From that viewpoint, the following technologies in existence today, available on a mass level to every American if politics and energy billionaires would allow it, are not so shocking.

In 2006, Sean McCarthy went on Fox news to invite the entire scientific community to examine the method of free energy his company Steorn Ltd. had developed. He wanted legitimate reviews by his peers of the new wave of technology which would power everything from cell phones to cars, for free, producing no pollution at all, and utilizing less toxic batteries than those currently in use. This was huge, revolutionary, would change the course of our industrial development and help rid our environment of harmful toxins. I try to be an optimist, but I’m not surprised that once again, free energy did not go over well.

A 400 billion dollar secret is a large one to keep. But when free energy is involved, things find a way of staying under wraps. 2008 marked the year a genius new technology was put into use making waste, that smelly trash you and I put on the curb so it can be transported to a dump somewhere out of sight and out of mind, into oil and gas (that stuff we spend billions on and conduct wars over).

Brian Appel and his company have a plant in Philadelphia that breaks down solid waste and extracts the carbon to make oil and gas that can power our cars and trucks! Garbage from landfills is broken down to a molecular level into three parts: oil, gas and solid. Garbage is ground down, water is added, and it is pressure-cooked using heat and a pump. Through this process, solids are transformed into oil, gas, and water. In a distillation tank the water and oil are separated, with the water sinking to the bottom, the gas floating up above and the oil suspended in the middle. Once the water is removed, viola, gas and oil are left. It can be pumped into a diesel engine right out of the machine.

The scientific name for the process is thermal deposionization, but the principle is simple: clean up the earth AND make gas and oil cheap, here at home, in the good ‘ol US of A. Brian and his team complete in minutes what the earth takes thousands of years to accomplish. They based their method on the natural process by which the earth makes the oil we find miles under the surface.

Making fuel from the foulest of waste and sewage is nothing short of brilliant! Why is this not on every news channel and in every classroom? Apel recently built a second facility in Carthage, Missouri. This 20 million dollar facility is capable of digesting 200 tons of turkey waste and coming out with oil. From 6 billion tons of agricultural waste, this facility can produce 4 billion barrels of oil a year. Incredibly, that is what we import in one year! Oil from turkey waste, agricultural waste, sewage and trash is cheap, easy, and done right here in the U.S. The oil crisis is over! National security problem solved. Someone please tell General McChrystal about this…NOW.

Lutec is a company, out of Australia, selling electric generators with magnetic motors able to provide clean, green energy. One generator can produce enough energy to run an entire household or small business. The technology to power a generator without oil is here and available to anyone with access to an Internet connection. For that clean energy enthusiast on your holiday list, you can purchase one at www.lutec.com.au/

The grave environmental, economic, political and social cost of our dependence on oil and gas is astronomical. Our greatest scientific and political minds are in a tailspin formulating plans and policies to convert to domestic, cleaner, sustainable energy sources. Or at least that is how the media and our government portray the issue. But well documented facts and technologies already in use, show the answers are already in our midst. Domestic, clean, and renewable energy are easily available for mass consumption and use. Why fight over clean vs. dirty coal and the environmental cost of drilling in pristine landscapes, when we can make oil out of garbage, run vehicle motors on batteries or water and power our homes and business with solar, wind and magnetic power?

In other words, our real energy crisis is the refusal of our political and corporate business leaders to facilitate the change from oil and gas to clean, renewable, and even free, energy. It is a crisis of conscience that energy that is beneficial to the health of our planet, the security of our country, and the well-being of humanity as a whole, is being buried so corporations can continue to excavate enormous profits from our current energy paradigm.

Hopenhagen?

2009-12-09T00:02:00.000-08:00

Written By: Kelly Opdycke
(Editor, KO Zine)

This week a number of world leaders gather in Denmark to for the 15th annual United Nations Conference on Climate Change. Representatives from 192 countries will be in attendance, including President Barack Obama, who recently reversed his decision to skip the summit in response to India and China’s new commitment to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Copenhagen’s progressive green policies seemingly make the city a perfect host of the summit. Denmark was one of the first nations to be gung-ho on wind power, with 20% of the country’s energy furnished by wind. And despite the fact that the Danes produce the most pound-per-pound trash per capita (a major embarrassment to this European nation), only 5% of this waste ends up in landfills, compared with 54% of waste in the United States.

The summit’s main goal is to create an agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol. The draft agreement is currently at 176 pages and needs to be whittled down to a few pages by Dec. 15, when the high level debate is set to start. All debating, pleading and arm-twisting are to be finished on Dec. 19.

With the UK Met Office recently reporting that the last 10 years have been the warmest on record and the EPA warning that global warming endangers public health earlier this week, the need for this summit is obvious.

In the end will be an agreement on emission cuts and finance, as well as alliances on how to set up carbon markets, technology and forestry deals.

All of this is great, but one problem exists: none of it matters. These are non-legally binding agreements. Arguments will be had, agreements will be made, but in the end little will probably be done.

As an anonymous source told the Guardian, “This is profound decision-making. We are trying to affect a revolution. We do not know where this will end up.”
Maybe me and Ms./Mr. Anonymous are wrong. Maybe this conference will be the one that changes everything. I seriously hope so.
But I doubt it.

More Info:
L.A. Times
The Guardian (UK) #1
The Guardian (UK) #2
Common Dreams

A Time For Thanks?

2009-11-28T13:03:00.000-08:00

Written By: Kelly Opdycke
(Editor, KO Zine)

This Thanksgiving may be one of the toughest for many of us. Some may not be able to afford to travel the distance to see their family. Others may not even have the money to recreate the traditional Thanksgiving dinner enjoyed year after year. Without the family or food of the holiday, some would say this holiday is nothing. Here’s something for you to think about, even if you have very little.

According to the History Channel, Thanksgiving was traditionally created following a particularly rough winter that killed many Pilgrims. After forming an alliance with some local American Indians, the Pilgrims were able to rack up enough food for the upcoming winter. Thanksgiving was a three-day feast to celebrate what they believed would be a less harsh winter.

You knew this already, right? Well, after being asked if Thanksgiving was an American holiday last week, thought I should do a little recap. Canada actually celebrates Thanksgiving, but it’s separate date with a whole different history.

While thankfulness is an important factor of this holiday, another aspect should be considered in the world of politics. The American Indians, native to what would become the United States, were willing to help their new neighbors, despite the fact that they had come from some unknown place. Today, many immigrants are simply pushed aside, left to do the jobs that many of us find menial.

When will this country finally start treating all immigrants with respect? Not just those who excel in math and science. - In June, President Barack Obama promised his commitment to “comprehensive immigration reform.”

He plans to “clarify the status of millions who are here illegally.” He believes those who wish to become citizens would be required to pay a penalty, learn English and go to the end of the line behind those who came here legally.

The president has asked Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), Chairman of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, to develop immigration reform legislation that was said to be announced this fail. Some of the 7 main points he plans to include are an employer verification system, a path to citizenship for those already in the country and better control of the borders.

All of this sounds great, but will it ever happen? I know, health care must be first and the government also must deal with growing unemployment, global warming, the list is never ending.

Those of us lucky enough to have Thanksgiving dinner this year probably have so many different dishes to prepare. We have to cook everything at once, getting as close to perfection as possible.

The government has the same problem, only they’re dealing with millions of lives. Tackling each issue takes patience and debate. If immigration must be put on the back burner, I hope it’s not forgotten.

More Info:
CBS News
New York Times
Senator Schumer Government Wensite
History Channel

Hollywood Non-Profit Helps Troubled Youth

2009-11-18T15:37:00.000-08:00

Written By: David Carr
Photos By: Michael Kass

My Friend’s Place: A non-profit finds, help, hope and a home for troubled youth in Hollywood.

The homeless situation in Los Angeles is still a pervasive issue. Many organizations along with community representatives and volunteers have tried to make a dent into this on going problem. One organization making a difference is My Friend’s Place. My Friend’s Place has created a comprehensive approach to dealing with homeless youth in Hollywood by providing shelter, a safe environment and in some instances a pathway to education and a better life. Michael Kass is the Director of Development at My Friend’s Place and he sat down with me to talk about the organization and how they are tackling this crisis.

David Carr: How long has My Friend's Place been in operation and how long have you worked there?

Michael Kass: MFP was founded in 1988 and I have worked here for 2.5 years.

DC: At this point in time how many youth would you say are currently being helped at My Friends Place?

MK: We see nearly 2,000 youth per year. They access services ranging from basic needs (food, clothing, showers, etc.) to educational opportunities, health education, and clinical case management.

DC: What is the percentage of homeless youth in Hollywood right now?

MK: There are approximately 11,000 homeless youth in Los Angeles County. I'm not sure what the exact count for Hollywood is, but I can tell you that our area is one of the few in which the number of homeless youth is increasing. Hollywood has always been a magnet for homeless youth and the current economic conditions have not changed that.

DC: In your opinion what is the main catalyst that puts kids on the streets? Is it broken homes? Drug abuse? Teenage runaways?

MK: It runs the gamut, David. We are seeing an increasing number of youth who have aged out of the foster care system--they hit age 18 and are expelled from the system, often without the skills or resources to live independently. A significant percentage of the youth we see are escaping from mentally or physically abusive homes and/or families. As the economic crisis has gone on, we have seen more and more youth whose families simply cannot afford to care for them right now. Sometimes the entire family is living in a shelter and the youth just need a place to go to be safe during the day.

DC: Is there anyway to breakdown percentage what kind of situations these kids are coming out of?

MK: A needs assessment conducted last year by The California Endowment and Children’s Hospital Los Angeles revealed that 57% of the youth at MFP were victims of childhood physical abuse, 75% have been involved with the criminal justice system in some form, and nearly one third are dealing with depression and/or bipolar disorder.

DC: How does My Friends Place help these youth?

MK: The idea of building trust and strong relationships is at the core of all MFP programs. Our model is low-barrier--any homeless youth between the ages of 12 and 25 (and their children) is welcome into our space as long as they are able to maintain our safe haven. Our mission is to assist and inspire homeless youth to build self-sufficient lives. Within this broad framework, we offer services in three general areas:

1. Basic Needs: Food, clothing, showers, hygiene products, communication, referrals to outside services, etc... Often, a young person on the streets has not eaten for days. Extreme hunger can make it impossible to focus on anything other than getting food. By meeting these most basic of needs, MFP makes it possible for a youth to begin focusing on longer-term plans.

2. Transformative Education: This includes workshops ranging from employment skills, resume preparation, and GED preparation to Creative Arts (theater, circus arts, creative writing, and visual arts). The creative arts programs function as a mental health intervention--young people achieve breakthroughs in writing or even circus arts that would not be possible in a more traditional mental health setting.

3. Health and Well-Being: Includes health education (OD prevention, STI prevention, emotional well-being, violence prevention, etc.) and clinical case management.

In addition to services our staff provides, we have partnerships with over 70 organizations that allow us to offer services such as basic onsite primary medical care, mental health therapy, and legal services.

DC: I know as a development director your primary job is to raise money but do you ever get involved with the program side of the organization?

MK: I do get involved with some creative arts programs when time allows. I've facilitated the theater workshop a few times, facilitated a film festival jury (a group of young people served as the "Youth Jury" for the environmentally focused Jules Verne Film Festival), and have worked to expand our Circus Arts program

DC: How can people get involved with your organization? What can folks do to do help?

MK: We have tons of volunteer opportunities, and we are always looking for in-kind donations and people can donate online to help support our services. A complete rundown of volunteer opportunities can be found here: http://www.myfriendsplace.org/howtovolunteer.html

DC: Michael thanks for taking the time to chat with me about what’s going on at My Friend’s Place.

MK: Not a problem David.

For more information on how to get involved with My Friend’s Place log on to www.myfriendsplace.org.

Non-Profit Gives Young People A Way to Cope With Pain

2009-11-17T03:48:00.000-08:00

To Write Love On Her Arms: A New Non-Profit Gives Young People A Way to Cope With Pain

Written By: David Carr

The World Health Organization estimates that 121 million people suffer from depression and 18 million of these cases are happening in the US. Another report claims that 2/3 of those suffering from depression never seek treatment and instead tend to self medicate with drugs, alcohol or cutting. A non-profit organization based in Florida is trying slowly but surely to reverse those numbers and they are using popular social networks to talk with young people openly, and honestly about their issues. To Write Love On Her Arms is a non-profit, based in Orlando, Florida, dedicated to creating a safe space for young people to talk about their issues. The organization’s staff and interns are able to refer troubled youth to professionals who can get them the treatment they need. Jamie Tworkowski is the founder of TWLOHA and he sat down with me for a lengthy discussion about his organization.

David Carr: Jamie, what prompted you to start this type of non-profit and how long has the organization been up and running?

Jamie Tworkowski: We have been operating for three years. The organization grew out of me trying to help a close friend. My friend Rene was really suffering from depression. She had tried to commit suicide. She had actually cut herself and carved “fuck up” on her arm. When we tried to get her into a hospital, the fact that she had ingested drugs meant that she actually had to wait five days before they could see her. I was with her for the five days, and while I was with her, I used things like My Space, Facebook and Twitter to reach out to people for help.

I knew that she could not afford treatment so I asked for donations. People started responding and helping; folks started to donate money but then other people started e-mailing about their issues with depression…other folks needed someone to talk to. It just seemed to grow from there. While my friends and I helped Rene we started helping other people in need.

DC: How big is your organization now?

JT: We have ten people on staff, and six interns. So far we have answered over 100,000 e-mails from people who needed to talk to someone and we have spoken to youth from over 100 different countries.

DC: Walk me through exactly what you do? Is your staff mostly talking to high school-age kids?

JT: Our message is a simple one. We basically set up a safe place either on My Space, Facebook, and/or Twitter, or over the phone for folks to talk to us and to share their story about dealing with their specific issue. Our goal is to meet them wherever they are and get them to the next step in their recovery. We are not the solution. Our role, after getting them to open up to us, is to get them to open up to a friend or counselor in their community. The age range of who we serve is pretty diverse. We end up talking to a lot of high school age kids, college kids, some adults…we have parents who talk to us about their kids. It’s a unique mix.

DC: What would you say is the number one issue many of the kids who reach out to you are facing?

JT: It’s depression. I mean, they just need ways to cope with different forms of depression. They get hooked on drugs or alcohol or they end up cutting themselves because they cannot figure out another way to deal with depression. The kids we work with don’t know how to cope with their pain.

DC: On average how many e-mails would you say you get a day from kids?

JT: We get anywhere from 500 to 1000 e-mails per week. We are also sending our staff to college campuses and interacting with young people face to face now.

DC: I know you had a booth at the Warped Tour this past year. How has music played a role in what you do?

JT: Two out of the five days I spent with Rene were at shows. Music was a huge part of her life. It was the only thing at the time, she felt connected to. When I reached out for help a few musicians responded. Young people feel a serious connection to the music and bands they are into, so I knew music had to be a part of this. We have been on the Warped Tour three times and Kevin (Lyman) and his people make it very easy for non-profits to set up and go on tour and reach out to young people.

DC: Are folks mainly stopping by during the tour to give a donation or do you have kids coming by to talk?

JT: All of the above. Some folks buy a T-Shirt, others want to really know what we are about but we do have kids at the shows who really want to have a serious conversation about what is going on with them. Sometimes they come to the booth in order to feel safe. They see it as a comfortable, safe place to be.

DC: How can people get involved and support the work you are doing?

JT: They can get on the website. They can donate money or just buy a shirt. We are working with a couple of great organizations right now to expand the kind of help we provide. We will be doing more peer to peer/face to face interactions with folks real soon. If folks are serious about helping us out all they have to do is hit the website.

DC: We started our conversation with you telling me about how helping your friend Rene was the catalyst that got you involved in creating this organization. How is Rene doing now?

JT: I'm happy to say that Rene has had three years of sobriety. Like any other person who has an addiction, she is taking each day as a challenge to stay sober. Some days have been better than others, but she's in a better place now, and she's in treatment getting the help she needs.

DC: Jamie thank you for chatting with me and good luck with all of the great work you're doing.

JT: Thanks, David.

If you are someone you know is suffering from depression, log on to http://www.twloha.com/index.php and get the help you or your friend needs.

Health Care Reform Passed?

2009-11-14T16:09:00.000-08:00

Written By: Kelly Opdycke
(Editor, KO Zine)

The House has finally passed a health care bill. Everyone in America can now jump for joy at this remarkable victory. But with one particularly big issue compromised and the dooms day that’s to come when the Senate tries to pass a similar version, I’m not sure the time has come for celebration.

Before I bring everyone down, let’s start with the positive: Democrats won a major victory with the inclusion of a public option in the bill. This will make health insurance accessible for those who aren’t covered by their employer and simply can’t afford it by allowing a government option at a much lower cost.

While this sounds great, one amendment that was attached to the bill stands out as a huge problem for those of us pro-choicers. The Stupak amendment prevents federal funding for any woman seeking an abortion. Now it’s nothing new for the government to refuse funds for an abortion except in the cases of rape, incest or harm to the mother (see the Hyde amendment), but this amendment is still the first of its kind. It also prevents abortion coverage for certain small businesses and families who qualify to receive a government subsidized insurance plan through private insurance agencies.

According to Mother Jones, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 18 million will utilize government subsidies to acquire health care for their family by 2019. Women may purchase their own abortion coverage, but like so many say, “Who really plans for an unplanned pregnancy?”

Pro-choice Senate Democrats have threatened to block any plan that includes this amendment.
On Nov. 9, President Barack Obama responded to critics by saying, “This is a health care bill, not an abortion bill.”

Next on my agenda is one specific opponent of this health care bill: Joe Lieberman. While I believe dissent is always a good thing, I think Lieberman deserves a good kick in the ass. Just because you label yourself an 'independent,' doesn’t mean you can ruin this moment for your former party.

So you want to filibuster the bill? Interesting, because in many other cases you have been an opponent of the filibuster, even for bills you did not support. You actually think this issue is worth standing up there and reading out of the phone book (or whatever) for who knows how long, more than say a high-tech fence to protect our borders (something you gave a nay, but it ultimately passed because you didn’t agree with wasting the Senate’s time).

Lieberman, you may not remember this, but last year you almost lost your committee chairmanship because you supported Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential candidate. Because of the newly-elected president’s wish that you would not be punished, you were allowed to keep your position of power in the Senate.

President Obama choose to do this because he wants government to be more bipartisan. Politicians like you, who seem to be unwilling to compromise, prevent this bipartisanship dream from coming true. Mr. Independent, its time for you to start compromising.

Overall, this bill still has a long way to go in the Senate. All I know is I have a lot of friends who haven’t been to the doctor in years, including myself. I’m not happy with the abortion compromise and I hope it’s eventually killed in the Senate. But, unlike Lieberman, I’m willing to compromise a little for the greater good.

More Info:
Mother Jones
Huffington Post
CNN

Issues of Diversity on a Volatile School Campus Part II

2009-11-13T15:02:00.000-08:00

A First Year Teacher in the World of Difference and Same (Part 2)

Written By: David Carr
Photo By: Colin Bootman

View Part I here.

So there I was and there we were, those sixty pairs of eyes staring at me, wondering what would come next. As I turned to the chalk board sweat starting to work its way on my brow, I started to write down a list of questions on the board. I turned to the sixty students and said in a commanding voice, "I need everyone to take out a sheet of paper, a pencil or pen and write these questions down right now." These were not tough questions by any stretch of the imagination. "What is your name, where do you live, do you live in a house or an apartment, when is your birthday?" These were the questions I had the students write down.

"What do we do after we write these down?"

Good question, I thought to myself but before I even knew it, I had the answer. I told the class that the Spanish I kids were going to have to ask my Hispanic students these questions in the best Spanish they could muster. My kids, the ESL kids were going to have to try and answer the questions in English. "When you are finished, I stated you will simply switch. My students will ask the questions in English and the Spanish I kids will answer back in Spanish."

"What will happen when we finish?" another student asked. "Don't worry; I replied there will be more questions." A funny and somewhat peculiar thing happened after I gave the directions. The students actually did what I said!! I almost fell over. At that time in my short career lesson plans were still tough for me to write but I had mastered the art of sounding like I meant business no matter what! I watched as the students asked each other the questions. I listened as the students stumbled through the answers and I looked on as the students tried to help each other with the assignment. This was truly the first time I had seen a large group of African American and Latino students working together on the campus. Even in classes where the two groups were mixed they often sat apart from each other and never interacted.

It was an anomaly to see the two groups now forced to work with each other. They finished the assignment by the time the class was over. They repeated the same assignment on Tuesday and I came up with new questions as I promised. By Wednesday the students were coming up with their own questions and I had become a non-entity in the room and to top it off, the kids seemed to be having fun.

The following week the Spanish I teacher was back at school. She was a bit perturbed at me for not having executed her lesson but she seemed interested in what had gone on in my class, because her students remarked that they had, had a good time with my kids. As fourth period began in my room my students seemed to lack focus. Finally one of my students asked, "Mr. Carr where are the students?" "Which students I asked?" "You know Mr. Carr los...los...los Africano Americanos, where are the friends?" This was the first time I had heard one of the immigrant students try to find a word other than 'mayate' to describe the Black students on the campus.

Now it seemed they had built some type of relationship with these students. However fleeting the relationship was they had no choice but to try and refer to the Black students with some sense of humanity and dignity. I suspect the same thing was happening in the Spanish I class. The Black kids had learned that not every Latino child on our campus was Mexican and that all they really had to do was ask and they would find out where some of the kids were from. At that moment I realized something about the champions of diversity and multicultural education.

These "do-gooders" often want to get kids of various ethnicities together to do one of two things. Either they have the kids talk about their differences to no end or they have the kids dialog on what it means to be "oppressed." The former in my mind is a mute point. The kids know they are different. They can see the differences as plain as day! The latter again in my humble still makes no sense. The kids know they are different and depending on where they live they know that their communities have been hard hit. They live it everyday.

What these folks never have kids do is get them to talk about what they actually have in common! How about that for a novel idea? Now my kids did not do that at all in that fourth period class, what they had to do was work together in order to finish an assignment. They had an assignment and they knew (or at the very least they believed) they had no choice and they needed to finish it. The only way that was going to happen was for them to work together.

I am not naïve enough to think that in one week you can solve racial issues on a high school campus or in a community. The problems that existed in my school and community still went on after that week. But what I do know is that if multi-ethnic communities are going to thrive and not just survive then we have to do more than just talk about our differences. We will have to find the ties that bind, find common ground and then work together to get things done.

I often look back on that week as the moment when I finally became a teacher. Kids were working together, checking each other's work, correcting each other while I merely looked on and coached. That was the week I learned of possibilities. It was the week I started to feel like a teacher and it was a week in which both teacher and student discovered hope...

Afghanistan: Crime and Corruption With Our Tax Dollars

2009-11-11T15:17:00.000-08:00

Written By: Sara Ledesma

Our colossal, on-going military and financial expenditure in Afghanistan was intended to yield democracy and stability. Despite throwing exorbitant financial and military resources down the bottomless ditch we call “the war on terror,” Afghanistan is no more stable than when we sent our first brave soldiers and wrote our first blank check. Why, with all the military might and formidable financial wherewithal of the number one superpower in the world, have we yet to make any progress toward the goals of stability and 'democracy?' Military resources are exhausted to the point of endangering national security, spending is so out of control we are bankrupting our national reserves and we are losing our mothers, fathers, sons and daughters in escalating numbers. Yet, we are still no closer to declaring our goals met and ending the massive hemorrhaging of our national treasury and our soldiers’ blood.

Since billions of our tax dollars are funding this epic fiasco, we have a right, and a patriotic duty, to ask what return we are receiving on our tragic investment. Violence levels mock our goal of stability. The recent sham of an election in Afghanistan is a glaring indicator we have failed miserably to institute any semblance of 'democracy.' By taking a closer look at our military strategy in Afghanistan, we can discern why we have yet to make a single step toward progress despite years of appalling waste.

Afghanistan is run by two brothers, both of whom enjoy unwavering U.S. military, political and financial support. Hamid Karzai is the official president of the country and controls the political state. His brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai is a tribal warlord who controls Southern Afghanistan with a mafia-like, iron fist. Reports from our own CIA, narcotics officials and military personnel describe a history of government collusion with Wali Karzai, including eight years of pay-offs from the CIA. Our government agencies pay Wali for such services as: intelligence, the orchestration of meetings with insurgent groups we want to convert to our side, and the renting of his properties to house U.S. military.

Despite the existence of long-held knowledge that Wali Karzai is involved in the 3 billion-dollar- a-year Opium trade, U.S. tax revenue is used to protect and enrich Wali. In addition to being a known heroin trafficker (the illegal drug made from Afghanistan’s Opium), allegations against the leader of the southern half of Afghanistan include: orchestrating mass election fraud to keep his brother illegitimately in power and playing both sides of the fence with U.S. and insurgent forces. Wali takes money from our CIA and military, then turns around and accepts bribes from Taliban smuggling their heroin through his territories. No doubt he then allows them to pass back through those same routes to smuggle weapons paid for with profits from that heroin. Wali Karzai uses his control of the bridges and pathways in Southern Afghanistan to profit off the heroin dealers who must pay to transport their contraband through the territory he rules. He has used his control of areas such as the Khyber Pass (to Pakistan) to create great wealth off those who traffic in contraband.

Wali Karzai has used the military crackdown on the heroin business in Afghanistan to increase his own influence and power. When our narcotics agents make an arrest of an Afghani drug trader, Wali himself steps in to fill the void, thus increasing his own share of the multi-billion dollar drug trade. Is it any wonder that with all the resources we are dedicating to stamping out the opium trade in Afghanistan, it still amounts to 15% of the nation’s GDP?
The drug trade is so entrenched in Afghanistan politics, the Obama administration recently pressured President Karzai to purge those with drug ties from his government and depose hi s brother from Southern Afghanistan. Not surprisingly, President Karzai has yet to do either. In fact, Ahmed Karzai’s running mate in the recent election, Mohammed Fahim, is a former warlord accused of drug trafficking.

Advocates of our current Afghanistan policy argue no one in Afghanistan is untainted by the drug trade or corruption. They claim it is a country run on an informal, back-channel system of survival of the fittest. From local police demanding bribes, to high-level political corruption and election fixing, conspiring with thugs and warlords is routine and customary. Everyone in Afghanistan is somehow compromised. Two cunning brothers, colluding to play our government for a fool and profiting by any means available—legal or illegal—are the perfect poster boys for politics in Afghanistan.

We partake in a corrupt system, reinforce it with our resources and complicity, and then have the audacity to wonder why we make no progress toward a legitimate, stable government in Afghanistan? If we participate in a soiled, perverted system, we cannot expect results that are free from taint and perversion. We say we are committed to destroying the lucrative drug trade which funds the death of our soldiers and undermines every goal we have in Afghanistan. Yet, Wali Karzai takes advantage of our hard work by capitalizing on any advances we make in prosecuting drug leaders, to enhance his own status as a drug king pin. Wali’s grip on the South (stronghold and sanctuary of Taliban forces) means anyone who passes through does so with his consent—which of course comes with the prerequisite kickback. Who is to stop him when he has the backing of the U.S. military and Drug Enforcement, as well as the political immunity granted him by his brother, the President of the country?

We are palling around with drug lords and corrupt politicians who care nothing for democracy, make a mockery of free elections and democratic principles and only value wealth and power. Our government is being manipulated by a pair of thuggish brothers who take our money, extol the virtues of democracy and diplomacy, then turn their backs and spit on everything democracy stands for. They engage in such widespread corruption, with well-known drug leaders and thugs, that there is no chance to earn the legitimacy that political and social stability requires.

In Other Words…the problem in Afghanistan is crime and corruption pay, and they pay with our tax dollars.

Viral Marketing: A Social Media Experience

2009-11-10T01:15:00.000-08:00

Written By: Khadeeja Coonrod

Ever heard of anything such as word of mouth? Ever heard of Viral Marketing? Welcome to Viral Marketing, a marketing technique that uses social networks to increase brand awareness by word of mouth delivery or network effects of the internet. Viral promotions come in the forms of: E-books, images, text messaging, video clips, brandable software, advergames, and interactive Flash games.

In the 1990's the producers of Mystery Science Theatre realized that their best marketers were the show's few but faithful audience and so they encouraged the show's viewers to videotape their copyrighted shows and pass on to friends. This was the beginning of a new way for word of mouth to spread.

Flashforward to 2002, three years before YouTube, BMW reported that over 11 million viewers tuned in to watch The Hire, a series of eight short films made specifically for the internet starring Clive Owen. 2 million of those viewers registered to the BMW website and within four years, the videos were viewed over 100 million times.

The proof now exists that viral marketing is a good technique. YouTube acquainted viral marketing to social media. Now we have more tools than we know what to do with: YouTube, Myspace, Facebook, Twitter, PayPal, Flickr, Ning, and the list goes on.

Let me give an example of how I've seen viral marketing do way better now than personal face to face contact has. I was working with an owner to promote his club and he wanted a street team to put promotional flyers for his club on cars parked around the club area. Do you want to know what everyone did? Most got to their cars and took it off, made sure it's not a parking ticket, and then threw it on the ground. Many of them looked annoyed or angry that there was some paper on their car in the first place only promoting yet another club that may or may not last. The street team I was working with kept saying, "This would be easier if the owner used Facebook or Myspace to send out club invitations and there, people can look at more information and see who's attending the events held."

Friendly faces aren't enough these days. People want to see results. People want to make sure someone they know will be there, they want to discuss details. They want to know through the web. The internet is the place to do that since it uses marketing tools to help promote their companies from online contests to online banner ads.

Blogging is another huge tool in social interaction. One of the first ways people will openly discuss something they saw or experienced that they liked or didn't like is to blog about it. Once it's out in the open, you get a reaction. Someone will either agree with you or disagree with you but now you have a list full of comments by readers or fans who are adding in their two cents worth. This is an effort in contribution.

To make viral marketing work, you must be able to build a solid relationship and how's that done? Communication, communication, communication. It's all about what the consumer wants. It's all about what's being mentioned by everyone. The consumer gets the last word. But just because someone tells you to buy a certain laptop doesn't mean you're going to go out and purchase it. You want the one that goes with you. You may not even want a laptop, you may want a PC or; you may not even know what you want. It could turn out that you may need to talk to someone who can assist you in trying to figure out what you need, what you don't want, and try to then know exactly what works best for you. It's about listening and paying attention to what websites are being used, what isn't going well for people, and what could be improved.

Viral marketing is about catering to the crowd and influencing what's in demand for the masses.

Issues of Diversity on a Volatile School Campus

2009-11-08T16:01:00.000-08:00

A First Year Teacher in the World of Difference and Same (Part I): Dealing with REAL Issues of Diversity on a Volatile School Campus

Written By: David Carr Photo By: Barbara Penoyar

I can remember it like it was yesterday. There I was, a first year teacher at Compton High. I was idealistic, young, a bit naive and in over my head. It was the month of October and September had seemed like the longest month of my life. I was teaching English as a Second Language at the beginning, intermediate and advanced levels. The woman who taught Spanish was going to be gone for an entire week and she had asked me if I could take her 4th period class into my classroom while she was gone. She had a lesson plan and work for the students to do. It seemed like a slam dunk.

All of my students were recent Latino immigrants. All of her Spanish students were African American. Back in the early 90's the demographics of places like South Central, Watts, and Inglewood had seen a huge shift. During the 80's these aforementioned places were 90-95% African American. By 1993 these areas were now 50% Black and 50% Latino. With the shift in demographics came racial tension. The tension on the street with the gangs was fierce. The tension also manifested itself politically. These areas were now half Latino but were being governed by a virtually all African American political elite. At times, the Black political establishment found itself at odds with its new found community members.

Compton had seen the biggest shift out of all of the neighborhoods. Compton was now 60% Latino and our high school reflected that demographic in terms of the student's population. The tension on school campuses was also an issue that needed to be dealt with. There were many fights and full-scale riots at big inner city high schools. I had found myself in the middle of two of them on my campus. All of these issues swirled in my head as I told the Spanish I teacher I would take all of her kids in my class for a week during my fourth period.

The following week, as I began the drive to Compton High, I started thinking to myself about the fact that on this Monday, my fourth period my classroom would have 30 Latino kids and 30 African American students in it. My students usually just kept to themselves on campus. On the campus the racial divide was thick. The Black kids played basketball at lunch. The Latinos played handball. The sports teams were not racially mixed at all. Unless they were forced to do so, you rarely saw any interaction between the Black and Latino students. The racial divide in my mind was a huge issue that someone had to deal with at the school and in the community.

As I pulled on to the campus I decided that my fourth period would be the place where change would begin. I didn't care about what the Spanish I teacher's lesson was. I simply threw it away and as soon as her kids came into my class I was going to be the one to bring these two factions together! So I threw her lesson away and as I taught periods 1-3 I feverishly tried to figure out what I was going to do with these two groups of kids once they hit my room. I knew I wanted to do something, but I didn't have a clue as to what that "something" would be. As the first break after third period ended, I began to sweat. At that point, I was wishing I didn't throw away that lesson plan!

As the bell rang, my students walked in and took their seats. I was given the typical greeting I had quickly become accustomed to in both English and Spanish (Hola Mr. Carr, hi Mr. Mr. Carro...my favorite was que onda Meeeester.) My kids took out their notebooks and started copying down their first assignment. "Maybe I lucked out and the Spanish I kids won't show," I thought to myself. No such luck.

All thirty of the Spanish I students arrived. I quickly tried to seat them throughout the room next to my students. As I did this you could hear the racially volatile questions coming out of the mouths of both groups of students. "Damn, why are their so many Mesakins in this class? How come you don't teach any Black kids?!!?" It seemed, that for the African American students, if you spoke Spanish, you were Mexican. At times they were just not aware of the diversity within the Latino community in the neighborhood.

"Hay porque los mayates esta en este classe?" I had heard some of the Latinos use this word to describe the Black students on campus. The literal translation of the word "mayate" is a small disgusting black bug. I learned quickly that this word was the Spanish equivalent of the word 'nigger.' The students passed these phrases between each other with the greatest of ease on campus and now they were doing it in my classroom. After I situated the students I went to the front of the classroom. You could cut the tension in the room with a knife. The thirty pairs of eyes I usually had staring at me were now sixty pairs of eyes, all wondering what we were going to do. They all seemed to be wondering what would come next. Interestingly enough, I was also wondering what we were going to do and what would come next...

Piracy, The Future Money Maker?

2009-11-06T18:35:00.000-08:00

Written By: Khadeeja Coonrod
Photo Credit: Michael Cogliantry

**Editor's Note: Before you read this article, read "Why Selling Records is Like Picking Up Women, and How The Big 4 Failed"

Illegal file sharing may turn out to be the next big sale. DigiRights Solutions (DRS) from Damstadt, Germany is passing around a presentation to future possible clients offering plans for how they might make more money by overtaking illegal file sharing instead of regular, legal sales. The interesting part about all of this is the fact that DigiRights Solutions is an anti-piracy body.

There's a mysterious number to the DRS strategy: one figure would ask for 25 per cent of people who get a letter, warning of legal action, if they prefer to pay the settlement fee without question. So that would be up to 150 times what a legal download brings in.

DRS says presently it can go after 5,000 illegal downloaders a month so their approach comes from the amount of legal sales compared to the amount of threatening letters DRS can send out for a client.

The plan is simple, DRS is going to force money out of lawbreakers by encouraging illegal music to be downloaded. The idea is simply genius.

If Shawn Fanning, the creator of Napster heard about this, I would be curious in what he had to say since Napster was one of the biggest popular peer-to-peer file distribution systems and was different from previous networks since it focused exclusively in music in the form of MP3 files. Napster also provided a wider selection of music that could be downloaded and copies of older songs, unreleased recordings, and bootleg recordings from concerts could be shared through Napster. After a few lawsuits which the first done by Metallica due to a leak of their demo and later the company had another lawsuite this time coming from Dr. Dre after he had sent a letter asking his works to be removed and then it not being done. Napster later shut itself down in July 2001 and declared itself bankrupt in 2002. It started June 1999 and paved the way for major filesharing companies such as Limewire and I-Tunes which are major names in filesharing providers along with Kazaa, Imeem, and Pandora; to name a few.

DRS is thinking forward and one's thing's for sure, it's paying close attention to what's happening in the technology industry and how to gain more money.

FCC Net Neutrality Doesn't Go Over Well

2009-11-05T14:46:00.000-08:00

Written By: Khadeeja Coonrod

It seemed like a brilliant plan to the FCC (Federal Communications Commissions) when FCC chairman Julius Genachowski announced in September 2009 his plans to develop formal rules prohibiting internet providers from selectively blocking or slowing Web content and applications. Then 44 companies sent a letter to the FCC saying new regulations could make the process of the development of the Internet more difficult.

The letter stated; "Until now, the innovators who are building the Internet and creating the advancements in telemedicine, education and the vast array of other online products and services have done so in an environment driven by competition and innovation. We believe government's role in the Internet should be to support investment, jobs and new technologies, especially if they increase the opportunity for all Americans to connect online. Public policy should encourage more investment to expand access to the Internet, whether it is access through a cell phone, a laptop, a PC or any new device that we have yet to imagine. If the FCC takes a prescriptive approach to new regulations, then it could place itself in the position of being the final arbiter of what products and services will be allowed on the Internet." The letter was signed by Cisco Sytems, Alcatel-Lucent, Corning, Erricsson, Motorola, and Nokia.

The companies believe the new rules could prohibit broadband providers from offering advanced and well-managed networks. The day before these companies sent in their letter, a group of 18 Repulican U.S. senators also sent in a letter also raising concerns about net neutrality regulations. "Broadband is growing while other segments of the U.S. economy are struggling, and there have been only a couple of examples of broadband providers blocking or slowing Web content," told the letter spearheaded by a Kansas Rebublican senator, Sam Brownback.

The net neutrality backers say new rules are necessary to protect the open nature of the Internet. "The FCC in 2005 relaxed rules requiring network providers to share their networks with competitors and without a net neutrality rule, powerful, large broadband providers could shut out Web sites or applications," net neutrality advocates say.

"Net neutrality rules would protect innovators and small businesses that want equal access to broadband networks from large companies that can enter into deals with network providers," said Art Brodsky, communications director for Public Knowledge, a digital rights advocacy group. "Broadband providers and others opposed to net neutrality are engaged in a coordinated effort to stop the FCC effort in its tracks. Arguments that net neutrality rules will stop telecom investments in networks are nonsense and insulting. All some industries do is threaten and bully. It's like they're saying, 'If we don't get what you want, then you're not going to get your network.' Telecom providers operated under network neutrality-like rules for more than 70 years and investment continued. Telecom providers and their allies have all the resources, Democrats and Republicans, that they've traditionally called upon, and it will obviously be incumbent on those of us who want a free and open and nondiscriminatory Internet to make the case."

The consumers should have the biggest say on what is blocked or can be viewed on their computers. The FCC should make sure nothing too manipulative is happening behind the scenes but the end result should be that everyday people should be able to have a say on what's blocked or isn't blocked just like they have a right to get an anti-virus protector for their computer. Competition between companies do create more jobs.

If huge companies and Government lawmakers don't agree with the FCC on this, then who knows what the rest of America will decide. Could it be that big corporations and lawmakers are just trying to remain powerful in the rights or will the FCC's new Net Neutrality rule really be problematic until of a problem solver? Only time will tell.

Taking It Dry

2009-11-03T03:48:00.000-08:00

Written By: Michael Raysses

Growing up, my Father had strange ways of teaching me about the world. Sometimes he would just utter an old Greek adage to illustrate a point. “A fish rots from the head down” comes most readily to mind. Regardless of his method, though, he would never expressly say what it was he wanted me to learn. Instead he would just suggest that I observe life and take note of what I noticed. One of his favorites that baffled me for years was when he recommended that I watch the way people interact, especially in those instances in which one of them is subordinate and poses no prospect of doing anything of benefit for the other.

This dynamic comes to mind when contemplating the issues of art and culture, especially as they relate to a civilization up to its earlobes in war, economic distress, and a malaise so pervasive it defies categorization. How do we accord art and culture in the post-We’re-At-(Undeclared)-War-In-Afghanistan-But-No-One-Bothered-To-Mention-It-So-Let’s-Pretend-It’s-Not-Really-Happening era? How do we treat art and culture when they arguably pose no obvious benefit to us as a civilization? And the unfortunate answer, as my Uncle Tasso would say, is that art and culture are taking it dry.

But before we proceed, we need to understand the slippery nature of the topic at hand. Like beheading a hydra, defining culture can be elusive—just when you think you’ve nailed it down, at least two more meanings spring up. In fact, in Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions, authors Alfred Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn compile a list of 164 meanings of the term. Broadly speaking, though, three meanings come to mind when discussing culture. It can touch on excellence of taste in the fine arts and humanities, i.e., high culture. It can represent an integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for symbolic thought and social learning, or it can manifest as the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group.

Regardless of what definition you choose, though, what is palpable is a sense of cultivation or improvement—that culture’s driving force is the betterment or refinement of the individual, especially through education, through art, and then onto the fulfillment of national aspirations and ideals. Sadly, what is even clearer is how this view is lost in
the current political milieu.

Back on March 31st of this year Time magazine’s Richard Lacayo reported on the annual lobbying blitz in our nation’s capital called Arts Advocacy Day. That’s the one day when various art groups from around the country plead their case that art is not only intrinsically good for people, but that it’s good for the economy too. In that piece, he cited the following statistic in reference to the National Endowment for the Arts’ budget:
“Thirty years ago, the NEA received a modest 12 cents per $100 of non-military discretionary spending. Today that is just three cents per $100. If the NEA had simply maintained its 1979 percentage of discretionary funding, its 2008 budget would have been $613 million.”
To give the issue of the NEA budget some context, consider this: The budget peaked in 1992 at $175 million. But a mere three years later, the budget was slashed by a Republican House majority to $99.5 million, a 39 percent cut. The freefall continued up until 1997 when the same House voted to eliminate the NEA altogether, an idea that was mercifully rejected by the Senate.

Though things have calmed down in the last 10 years, the 2009 NEA budget request by the Obama White House is just $155 million, an increase of only $10 million. Admittedly, that would be on top of the $50 million that the NEA got in the stimulus bill. But given the boatloads of funds dispersed by the feds to financial institutions who represent themselves to be too big to fail, (when in fact all they are is too greedy to succeed), $205 million seems Uncle Sam’s version of rolling up a wrinkled $20, stuffing it into our unsuspecting hand, and telling us to go buy ourselves a Coke or something nice.

These are tough economic times that demand fiscal accountability. So what do we get for our hard-earned tax dollars from the NEA? We get the benefit of the express mandate of a designated arts organization by our government. It is an entity dedicated to bringing the arts to all Americans, while providing much-needed leadership in the field of arts education. Its influence has impacted the development and preservation of folk art, theater, opera, literature, dance, as well as other realms of artistic expression. Though the majority of direct public funding is still generated by a raft of other federal, state, regional, and local agencies, the role of the NEA as the de facto leader in its field can’t be understated.

But watching the federal government’s treatment of the NEA and of art and culture generally, I suddenly understand my Pop’s wisdom. The fish in this case, the federal government, has most definitely rotted from the head down. How else do you explain the gap between the proposed NEA budget and a Department of Defense budget for the 2009 fiscal year that comes in at anywhere from between $925 billion to $1.14 trillion, depending on whose numbers you use?

I am aware of how naïve this might sound. But there is no balance in our current state, no recognition or action to engage the things we know are our civilization’s lifeblood—our culture and the art that springs forth from it. What shocks me even more, though, is that there is no national dialogue on this issue anywhere in the mainstream media. The orgy of defense-related spending is now a way of life, beyond question because it flies under the radar of public perception

Suddenly my Father’s obsession with the notion of watching two entities interact comes into distinct focus: You measure character in a vacuum of potential benefit. How does a dominant entity treat a subordinate one when there is no perceived value to be gained? In this case, I am afraid Uncle Tasso had it right.

Michael Raysses is a writer/actor/National Public Radio commentator living in Los Angeles. E-mail him at MichaelRaysses@hotmail.com.

Obama Admin’s Sudan Middle of the Road Approach

2009-11-02T15:32:00.000-08:00

Written By: Kelly KO
(Editor, KO Zine)

Last week, the Obama Administration finally laid out their plans for how to deal the controversial Sudanese dictator Omar Hassan al-Bashir. The decision took months of debate, but will effect many, in the region and beyond, for years to come.

The policy will place pressure on al-Bashir and offer incentives should he comply with US demands. Both the demands and incentives have yet to be released. This middle of the road approach is much softer than President Obama had pledged on the campaign trial, but hard enough to avoid giving the Sudanese government a free pass.

The al-Bashir’s regime is responsible for genocide in their region that has killed more than 300,000 in six years, according to UN estimates.

The lack of harsh sanctions in the policy is somewhat aligned with renowned expert on Sudan Alex de Waal’s argument that aggressive international intervention is either ineffective or sometimes counter-productive.
Regarding the issue, the Program Director at the Social Science Research Council has wrote, “When peace and justice clash, as they do in Sudan today, peace must prevail.”

Two key members of the administration are said to be the reason behind the extended debate and the final decision is a compromise between the two’s arguments.

Retired Air Force Maj. Gen. J Scott Gration, the US special envoy to Sudan, fought for more communications and easing of sanctions on Sudan. Gration preferred a “gold star” and “cookies” approach (as told to the Washington Post), which outraged many in the human rights camp.

The other side of the debate is lead by UN Ambassador Susan Rice. Rice believes that the on-going genocide calls for harsh penalties and some, including former envoy to Sudan Andrew Natsios believe she, “want[s] to declare all out war.”
Of course, the US is not the only player in this issue. Earlier this year, the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for al-Bashir, leading the Sudanese government to tell the ICC to “eat” the warrant. In the following months, most aid workers were forced out of the region because of fear of unrest that the warrant was expected to spark.

The US policy is much like those of other countries efforts with Sudan, including many in Western Europe. To complicate the issue, Sudan’s strong relationship with China means that they don’t necessarily need to comply with the US and other countries that have similar policies.

Some may argue that compromise is just an indecisive leader’s way of making a decision. In some cases, this may be true. However, in the case of US-Sudan relations, a compromise should be just enough to finally bring this war-torn region closer to peace.

Find out more:
Washington Post

The Atlantic

Time

BBC

In Other Words… Military Contractors Gone Wild Part2

2009-10-21T01:27:00.000-07:00

Who is Blackwater and why are they building a privately owned mercenary army in our country?

Written By: Sara Ledesma

• Founded in 1996, Blackwater has used government contracts granted by the Bush administration to build up a private army of twenty thousand soldiers of fortune and a massive military base. The Blackwater compound in North Carolina is worth about $50 million.

• The Blackwater base contains: tanks, helicopter gunships, a Boeing 767, a Zeppelin and a complete arsenal of weapons.

• The most publicized incident involving Blackwater involved the shooting of 17 Iraqi civilians on Sept. 16 in Baghdad labeled by American troops present at the scene a "criminal event." It is alleged this was payback for the killing and hanging of Blackwater troops. The subsequent investigation cleared Blackwater of any criminal liability. As it turns out, the report exonerating Blackwater for the massacre was written by a Blackwater employee. Is it any surprise he found his company innocent of any wrongdoing?

• Another case of unprovoked assassination was the murder of the Iraqi Vice President’s bodyguard by an intoxicated Blackwater contractor.

• None of these violations were deemed prosecutable by law. Blackwater effectively plays both sides of the fence to escape prosecution. When they are being sued in the U.S they claims they are part of the U.S. Armed Forces to declare immunity, and alternately assert themselves as an independent contractor domestically, to avoid being subjected to the military court martial system. Thanks to Paul Bremmer who, on his last day in Baghdad signed the order making this legal, the strategy is airtight.

• Blackwater recently re-branded itself as ”Xe” in order to separate itself from the notorious reputation of scandal and lawlessness tied to its former name.

• Their original contract in Iraq was to provide private security for Bremer, but within a year, their services expanded to include military combat.

• The U.S .occupation is now dependent on this one private, mercenary company and can’t function without Blackwater on the roads.

• The White House has systematically fought every attempt to establish oversight of the contractors and has granted them immunity under Iraqi law.

• Blackwater is not the only company making its own rules while the government writes the checks –tens of billions of our tax dollars have been allocated to the rebuilding of Iraq, and the tally keeps rising. Add to that the estimated $9 billion of Iraq’s own oil money that has gone missing and we’ve got waste, and possibly fraud, on a massive level.

• We’ve now added Afghanistan to the bill, and still, there is no effective oversight as to how the money is being spent.

The Iraq Embassy Scandal

• The embarrassing photos coming out of the ArmorGroup scandal proves we have learned nothing from the debauchery and contemptible behavior by contractors at Abu Ghraib.

• September 15, 2009: photos are released showing half naked, boozing contractors, entrusted with the job of protecting our embassy, running wild like immature frat boys.

• Members of the independent Commission on Wartime Contracting, established to investigate contracting issues in Iraq and Afghanistan, make parallels between the infamous photographs of detainee abuse and those depicting the Kabul Embassy guards caught engaging in various acts of lewd conduct. The widely publicized photos show contractors: urinating on one another, exposing themselves, engaging in sexually deviant behavior, drinking off each other’s naked body parts and more.

• The photos circulate online, embarrassing the State Department and endangering our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

• Terry Pearson, a 23-year veteran of the British Army who worked for ArmorGroup subcontractor RAI in Kabul gave the following firsthand account: “The first thing that struck me was they had a metal container in the middle of the road, on which they were burning wooden pallets. The second thought that went through my mind was alcohol and a fire this size, looked very unsafe. Most of people there were wearing underwear, but many were also wearing coconut shell braziers [sic] and coconut shells over their groins, and were for the best part naked. Some were standing there urinating on the ground and on each other.”

• As recently as March 2009, spot checks revealed that the guards were often absent for hours at a time.

• An employee of ArmorGroup made counterfeit purchases from his wife's company worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

• The Senate Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight investigated AmorGroup’s 5 year, 189.3 million dollar contract awarded to them in 2007 by the State Department. They found AmorGroup failed to provide: a sufficient number of guards, proper weapons training, requisite levels of ammunition or the proper security clearances. They also severely lacked the adequate number of medical technicians and emergency planning.

• As of today, AmorGroup still holds its contract in Kabul

Commission on Wartime Contracting  

Congress formed The Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan to study the allocation and administration of privatized military contracts. These are a few of the findings in their report:

• The commission calculated that investigators had issued 1,287 recommendations to fix waste, fraud and abuse in the Pentagon, but many had never been implemented.

• The 111-page report documents mismanagement, lack of oversight, and a failure to learn from past mistakes.

• The Commission noted a perfect example of waste/mismanagement: Houston-based KBR was building a 30-million-dollar dining facility at Camp Delta in southern Iraq, after the company had just completed a 3.36-million-dollar renovation of the old dining facility—making the new one a sickening waste of tax payer money.

• Of the 504 oversight officials that the military estimated it needed to oversee contracting in Afghanistan, only 166 were actually in the field in April 2009.

• The Pentagon had only four auditors in Afghanistan to supervise billions of dollars in government money.

• The Pentagon failed to deduct money from contractors who underperformed or didn’t meet the terms of their contracts.

• The investigators were prevented from uncovering the full extent of the fraud because they were not allowed to examine the work of sub-contractors.

• Although companies like ArmorGroup and KBR work directly for the U.S. government, an estimated 70 percent of the work is done by sub-contractors (like First Kuwaiti Trading Company, Prime Projects International from Dubai or Tamimi of Saudi Arabia) and these companies operate outside the jurisdiction of the oversight committee.

• Many of the soldiers assigned to supervise the contractors had never received the formal training necessary to conduct their oversight duties.  

KBR

KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton, holds the contract for the electrical services performed in Iraq. They are being sued for causing the unnecessary deaths of our courageous men and women in uniform as a result of criminally negligent electrical work.

• An Army inspector found thousands of buildings at U.S. bases in Iraq and Afghanistan have such poorly installed wiring that it places the lives of American troops at risk.

• Many of the wires installed in Iraq need to be replaced.

• Jim Childs, a master electrician and the top expert in the Army Safety Survey told CNN that "with the buildings the way they are, we're playing Russian roulette."

• In Iraq, 18 U.S. troops have died by electrocution since 2003.

• Of the nearly 30,000 buildings the Army's "Task Force Safe" has examined so far: more than half "failed miserably” and 8,527 were given a "flash" warning to repair in four hours or evacuate the facility.

• After the January 2008 elocution death of the Army’s Green Beret Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth at a U.S. base in Baghdad, faulty electrical work has become a chief concern in Iraq and Afghanistan.

• Staff Sgt. Maseth’s electrocution in the shower prompted the creation of "Task Force Safe," a team of master electricians assigned to inspect Army posts for electrical dangers.

• At least two service orders were issued warning of the hazard in Maseth's quarters.

• Maseth's family is suing KBR. An Army investigator has sided with Maseth’s family and recommended his death be declared a "negligent homicide.”

• KBR denies responsibility for Maseth's death or those of any other soldiers.

• KBR was not the only company found to be negligent. Unbelievably, the Army survey found problems with every contractor whose work it inspected.

• Task Force Safe has begun to inspect another 70,000 buildings in Iraq and is commencing a review of bases in Afghanistan. Pentagon spokesman Chris Isleib told CNN, "We are correcting hazardous conditions every day."
The vote against Franken’s Amendment

A final case study exposes the true depths of depravity to which our government leaders will sink in order to protect the cash cow contracts of their cronies in the ever-expanding privatized military contracting industry. 30 Republican members of the United States Senate voted to protect a private contractor, in this case Halliburton/KBR, over a woman who was gang raped. The shocking details of this implausible low to which our Congress has sunk:

• In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad and was gang-raped by her co-workers. She was locked in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and "warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job."

• As sick as this is, it was not an isolated incident.

• Jones was denied the right to bring charges against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations could only be addressed in private arbitration.

• Senator Al Franken of Minnesota stepped up to the plate to confront this glaring injustice committed against Jamie Leigh Jones. He proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR "if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court."

• Despite the obvious responsibility of our government to protect women from rape, 30 Republican senators voted against justice for victims of violent sex crimes in order to allow private contractors to continue living above the law.

• Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions of Alabama had the audacity to claim that allowing victims of sexual assault their day in court is tantamount to a "political attack" of Halliburton. Apparently the GOP believes the interests of their contractor cronies supersede the constitution of the United States.

• The fact that 29 others, exclusively men, chose to join the Republican lawmaker in opposing the Franken amendment is too sick and sad to comprehend.

• Those senators who refused to protect a victim of rape in order to privilege a callous corporation are: Alexander (R-TN) Barrasso (R-WY) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Gregg (R-NH) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Kyl (R-AZ) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Wicker (R-MS)

• Ten Republican senators did vote according to their humanity and conscience, including every female member of the GOP.

• Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska defended her vote for Franken’s Amendment by stating: "I want to make sure that a woman, any individual who is a victim of a terrible act, knows that they have got protections." Republican Sen. George LeMieux of Florida explained his vote in the following words: "I can't see in any circumstance that a woman who was a victim of sexual assault shouldn't have her right to go to court," LeMieux said. "So, that is why I voted for it." Perhaps a hint of morality still exists in the GOP.  

Conclusion

From Abu Ghraib, to the gang rape of a contractor at Halliburton, to Blackwater’s repeated abuses of power and KBR’s criminally negligent electrical work, we have witnessed a spectacle of waste and debauchery unleashed by unregulated military contractors. Halliburton overcharges us for everything from towels to gas. KBR sticks it to us for over 33 million dollars for a dining hall and is so criminally negligent in the performance of their duties that enlisted soldiers, fighting for their lives on the battlefield, are dying in their bathrooms as a result of shoddy wiring.

A woman can be gang raped and 30 Senators will vote to deny her justice. A U.S. Watchdog agency can report such fraud as: "The State Department does not know specifically what it received for a billion-dollar contract with security firm DynCorp International to provide training services for Iraqi police”. Despite these incidents, and more, nothing is done to rein in these rogue companies. The only explanation is that our government is complicit.
In Other Words…our military and intelligence agencies are being outsourced to private companies who are running wild like cowboys on the frontier and pillaging our federal treasury, unaccountable to the laws of our country or to us tax payers who are footing the bill.

In Other Words… Military Contractors Gone Wild Part1

2009-10-20T01:17:00.000-07:00

Military Contractors Gone Wild: Hijacking our Treasury and Living Above the Law

Written By: Sara Ledesma

Billions of dollars flow into the private contracting sector in Iraq and Afghanistan and into Homeland Security, here at home. The way in which this money is spent and the services provided by these contractors are performed is, for the most part, unregulated and unsupervised. The private armies, and the mercenary soldiers that comprise them, are not held to any legal standards…not the laws other citizens must abide by, not the laws our U.S. Troops are held to, and not the laws which apply to the countries in which they are contracted to fight and rebuild. Despite investigations which expose habitual negligence, waste, fraud, incompetence, and even criminal conduct, on behalf of these private contractors, nothing is being done to follow the trail of our tax dollars or make the employees of these companies accountable to the laws that the rest of us must follow.

How can our government willfully look the other way, abandoning one of their chief duties— supervising government contracts? Why do they refuse to demand responsibility for the billions of dollars unaccounted for, and criminal actions perpetuated by, military contractors voraciously profiting off the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Military contractors are calling the shots, writing their own contracts, conducting their own investigations when accused of wrong-doing, receiving immunity from the rule of law our men and women in uniform abide by, profiting off crony capitalism akin to corporate welfare where exorbitant profits are paid to the pet companies of the administration, all with no competition or accountability. A string of scandals has not been enough to put an end to the unregulated run, tallying in the billions, on our government coffers. In fact, an amendment to make it illegal to use government contractors that don’t allow rape victims their day in court was just defeated in the Senate. One of the first attempts at reigning in the outlaw military contractors committing criminal acts with impunity was actually voted down.

The use of military contractors is exploding as war abroad, and homeland security domestically, are transformed into privatized industries. Private security contractors now outnumber our own troops. We are witnessing the creation of the most privatized war in our history, and the same is happening with Homeland security here in the U.S. Private contractors have co-opted our international and domestic security, but at much higher profits and none of the regulation or accountability, of our military and government agencies. The CEOs of these companies bank billions of taxpayer dollars while their employees get a license to rape and kill at will.

Meanwhile, our men and women in uniform are dutifully held to U.S. Military law and get paid embarrassingly less for doing the same, or often more difficult and dangerous, duties than those of privately-contracted soldiers.

Halliburton, Bechtel, Parsons, KPMG, Blackwater, among others, are feasting insatiably off a corporate welfare system designed by their friends in our U.S. government. The Bush administration created private markets for war contractors, barred their competitors from even entering the race, and then paid them to do the work on "cost-plus" contracts, which guaranteed them profits –all at taxpayer expense. For Example, 90 percent of Blackwater's revenues come from government contracts and virtually its entire staff is comprised of former U.S. soldiers. Our government spent millions training these soldiers and then Blackwater poaches them, pays them many times the salary our military pays, and charges the bill back to us!

Blackwater builds its staff, facilities and state of the art armory of weapons, tanks and jets on the government’s dime and yet this vast infrastructure is all privately owned and controlled. Our tax dollars foot the costly bill for the build up and running of this private army, yet as citizens we have no right to any of the equipment and infrastructure we’ve paid for or any right to demand accountability by the soldiers we’ve spent millions training. The CIA has lost so many staffers to contractors they had to prohibit recruiting in the agency dining room.

So how did the privatization happen? The Bush administration cannot claim it was a scheme to apply free market rules to the security industry because the granting of these outrageously profitable contracts are not given according to free market, capitalist principles. In fact, it’s a text book definition of crony capitalism. According to former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan in his book The Age of Turbulence: New Adventures in a New World, "When a government's leaders or businesses routinely seek out private-sector individuals or businesses, and, in exchange for political support, bestow favors on them, the society is said to be in the grip of 'crony capitalism.' The favors generally take the form of monopoly access to certain markets, preferred access to sales of government assets, and special access to those in power."

Corporations are funding their private, illegal armies and spy agencies with our tax dollars. The cronies of these private contractors in the Bush Administration’s State Department and Pentagon designed it so the contractors would have no government oversight, despite being funded by the National Treasury and having an enormous amount of power usually reserved for military, and intelligence agencies (CIA, NSA and FBI).

Rumsfeld took advantage of the state of emergency after 9-11 to create a new system of military outsourcing without a legal or national debate. His plan to enrich the pockets of his contractor friends at the expense of our tax dollars was laid out as follows: Reject troop increases in Iraq, force the military to go to private soldiers of fortune to fulfill its combat needs, build up private armies such as Blackwater while downsizing our military, then extend this privatization to homeland security back in the U.S. Once he began outsourcing security, he quickly expanded the services of private contractors to intelligence, interrogation, and homeland security.

There are hundreds of companies profiting rapaciously off of this privatization scheme. Lockheed, GE and Booz Allen are a few companies receiving some of the biggest slices of the military contracting pie and enjoying exemption from oversight. The problem is the outsourcing of our security has been deliberately constructed to allow contractors to operate completely outside the checks and balances of the constitutional structure of our country.  

Rumsfeld, at the direction of Bush himself, put Paul Bremer in charge of orchestrating the laws to guarantee private contractors carte blanche to operate with complete immunity. Most of these laws are still on the books today. There is no political will to change the status quo. In Iraq and Afghanistan, companies like Blackwater and Halliburton are performing more and more of the duties our troops in uniform once performed. Here at home the intelligence industry continues to be outsourced and privatized to such an extent that the CIA has had to restrict Blackwater and others from poaching their spies inside the CIA’s own dining hall.

 A few numbers to drive the point home:

• Counterintelligence Field Activity, an intelligence agency created under Rumsfeld to act independently of the CIA, outsources 70 percent of its budget to private contractors.

• In 2003, the U.S. government gave 3,512 contracts to private companies for security services

• From 2003-2006: the Department of Homeland Security issued more than 115,000 such contracts.

• The global homeland security industry—basically non-existent before 2001– is now a $200 billion sector of the economy.

Frighteningly enough, these private companies, entrusted with sensitive, classified intelligence pertaining to the security of our entire nation are allowed to play fast and loose with almost no oversight and no accountability. There is a blurring of the line between government and private corporations that breeds abuse, misconduct, and fraud because where these corporations end and government begins is becoming less and less discernible. This lack of a clearly defined demarcation allows for such perversions of oversight as: Blackwater being permitted to investigate its own alleged massacre in Baghdad, the Army to outsource the job of updating the manual for dealing with private contractors to a private contractor and for a private contractor to be awarded the job of overseeing other private contractors. And since Bremmer has already ensured private contractors work and play in a legal limbo where they are subject to no jurisdiction of law, when an investigation is actually conducted, it is ineffectual and merely for show.

Meanwhile, our own military and our own troops are left to do the dirty work and endure much more risk for much less pay. While our troops are subject to the rule of law, private contractors are allowed to run wild in a state of perpetual immunity. They play the game according to whatever rules they choose and the government pays the bill.

A close up look at a few of the recent scandals illustrates how our military and national budget is being hijacked by the military contractor cronies of those who are elected to serve the common good of the citizens of our nation - continued in Part2.

The tunnel

2009-10-15T14:20:00.000-07:00

Written By: Kelly Opdycke
(Editor, KO Zine)

Today, as shocking as it might sound, I’d really like to thank the Republican governor of the great state of California. Mr. Schwarzenegger, first, thanks for that Harvey Milk holiday. It was long overdue. But, Arnold, I’d also like to thank you for vetoing the 710 Pasadena tunnel. We’ve had our differences in the past (many, many of them), but you have my full support on the veto of this complete waste of time and money.

The 710 Freeway, also known as the Long Beach Freeway, stretches vertically on the east side of Los Angeles. The 23-mile route runs along the Los Angeles River, beginning in Long Beach and ending in Alahambra. Originally, construction was planned for an extension through Pasadena, but the community opposed this plan for various reasons and the freeway was never completed.

The tunnel idea came about to appease those Pasadenaens who thought the freeway would split up the city. The plan would have cost around $2-3 billion. How politicians thought this amount of money would be easy to come by, I have no idea - Or maybe I just don’t understand politics. Maybe money just comes out of nowhere. If that’s true, then everything I have to say is bullshit. But I’m pretty sure our tax dollars would pay for this tunnel.

I have never been opposed to paying taxes, but I want my tax dollars to go towards something useful, both now and in the future. Investing in a more efficient public transportation could help transition L.A. from a city infamous for its horrendous traffic to a mass transit mecca that rivals New York and San Francisco. And they should create more bike lanes while they’re at it.

While the Terminator vetoed the tunnel, he left the option open for an $850,000 surface highway. If the highway absolutely must be completed (and I don’t understand why it must be), this route is obviously much more monetarily feasible than the tunnel.

Many disagree with the construction of a surface highway. Some of the arguments are related to environmental concerns, while others think the highway could harm the community of Pasadena.

To be honest, I think all parties have forgotten that not only is this state facing a recession like only few have seen before, we are also dealing with a depletion in oil availability as well as the danger of global warming. And, no, public transportation isn’t the only option when it comes to this issue, but it’s definitely one that needs to be seriously considered.

When are Angelenos going to be ready to make a change? Only when public transportation becomes more efficient for commuters than their cars. And if the government can’t make a train more appealing than sitting in hours of traffic, I’m not sure I’m confident they can do anything.

Saying and Doing: President Obama and the Peace Prize

2009-10-13T15:02:00.000-07:00

Written By: David Carr
Photo Credit: Smith Prasirtpun

President Obama Wins the Nobel Peace Prize

When I woke up Friday morning I did what I normally do. I checked my e-mail and then went to Facebook. I am still figuring out Facebook and still determining its usefulness when I saw a curious posting about President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. I honestly thought it was a sarcastic reference or a joke of some sort.

Once I moved to the morning news I realized that this was no joke at all. President Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize to the surprise of everyone and I do mean everyone. People on the committee had no idea he was even nominated. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs just exclaimed "wow" and then waited 45 minutes until he told the President fearing it was some sort of joke.

Obama himself was awakened to the news by his daughters who not only told him he had won the peace prize but that it was their dog's birthday and that they were excited about their up coming three day weekend. The pundits wasted little time in dissecting the meaning of Obama winning the coveted prize. RNC chairman Michael Steele railed against the committee for giving the prize to Obama on the grounds that he had not accomplished anything to deserve winning the award. Many on the left felt it was hypocritical for the President to win an award for peace as the war in Afghanistan escalates. The questions at hand rang like a clarion call. What did the President actually do to win the award or to even be nominated for the award? The answer is a bit complex.

It seems that while our President may be the victim of boorish town hall meetings, not so flattering signs and rhetoric here in the states, in the international community his cult of personality is alive, well and intact. The committee, rightly or wrongly may have nominated President Obama purely on the basis that he is so different from his predecessor. I am not sure of the subtle and not so subtle nuances of the nominating committee but they have made it clear that President Obama won the award because of his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Many have read this as, our President did not necessarily get the award for doing something but rather he got it to symbolize the potential of the things he will do. He got the award for the things he has said he was going to do. He in effect, has received this award for mainly "saying". Obama himself has said he will accept the award not based on what he has done but rather as a call to action to confront the challenges of the 21st century. What some even minded critics have stated in a nutshell is that they would like to see our President execute a little more "doing" and a lot less "saying."

In any case I like how our President accepted his surprising award and I agree he needs to use it as a call to action. This award needs to be a motivating force to now get things done. While Obama may be an amazing orator and would be bridge builder, the American populous is starting to grow weary of speeches and platitudes and appearances on late night TV. Again, we find ourselves caught within the political quagmire between "doing" and "saying". Change is never swift. It is always slow and methodical and it never comes quick enough. If our President truly means what he says about using this award as a motivating force then I say let's see it happen.

Let's use this semi-awkward, award winning moment as a catalyst to get a few things done, and to be fair, our president has been working. He has been trying but this may be the impetus, to push rhetoric to tangible action. We have been caught up in the war between "saying" and "doing". Cuban poet Jose Marti once said that "doing" is the best way of "saying" and this may be the mantra that the Obama administration may need to truly push forward the change we have talked about; the change our country so desperately needs.

The pundits both on the right and the left will have a few days of perry and thrust over this turn of events and our president himself is probably still scratching his head over his "victory". What I hope can come out of this is the idea that now is the time to turn saying into doing. It's time to truly put together the moving pieces when it comes to our health care system, our economic situation and the war in Afghanistan. Maybe the award is a good thing. Maybe the award can truly be the catalyst to go from saying to doing. I hope so. At this moment we seem to be a nation divided. We seem to be a nation in need of a little more doing and a lot less saying as Jose Marti has said, doing is indeed the best way of saying.

In Other Words… Who Needs Fact and Logic?

2009-09-29T00:25:00.000-07:00

Who Needs Fact and Logic When Fear and Loathing Pass as Legitimate Discourse?

Written By: Sara Ledesma

The death of Walter Cronkite signaled an overall death of accuracy, accountability and professionalism in the mainstream media. It is tragic that the country with the freest media in the world is squandering it away on sensationalism and partisan bickering. The free press is paramount to keeping our country both free and democratic.

Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of thought and freedom of the press are the essential instruments that sustain and uphold the liberty we enjoy as citizens of this great country. Why then has it become acceptable to short change our democratic process and our national dialogue by promoting falsehoods and muddying intelligent discourse about actual issues with ridiculous inventions? There is no accountability when these lies are told and the constant media coverage they receive serves to promote them and grant them credibility.

In place of civil, reasoned debate, we have ill-informed talking heads screaming at one another with no regard for accuracy or logic, only for “winning” and increasing ratings with their performance. Polls pass for data, sound bites pass for thoughtful dialogue and knowledge, and there is no standard of legitimacy, civility, logic or most of all—accuracy and truth—for any statement or claim made by journalists and bloggers. More and more, even politicians, officials elected to serve and lead, are engaging in formulating and promulgating theories and statements that are outlandish, unsupported, and sometimes flat out contradictory to the actual facts.

We’ve reached an apex of disrespect in discourse that allows blatant vulgarity against the President of our country during a joint session of Congress. Joe Wilson can yell at the President and many think him a hero, including some whom confer the title of journalist upon themselves. In fact, over a million dollars was raised on behalf of Joe Wilson’s disrespect. Instead of outrage at his breach of appropriate conduct, he received praise by the fringe Right that has high jacked the Republican Party. Wilson’s lack of decency transformed him from an obscure politician into a fundraising cash cow. Walter Cronkite is turning over in his grave.

We have always proudly been a country of competing ideas and viewpoints. Our “marketplace” of competing ideas is what makes our country the egalitarian, democratic, free thinking, diverse nation we embrace as uniquely American. Throughout our history it has been vital to what is flouted as American ingenuity, innovation, resourcefulness and creativity. Enter the current political and social climate where we are witnessing a perilous, radical rupture with our history of honored tolerance and encouragement of multiple points of view. Our prior reverence for freedom of thought, born of the Enlightenment, is succumbing to a Dark Age of incivility to those whose views we oppose and contempt for any ideology that differs from ours. In place of tolerance, intellectual integrity and intellectual curiosity is a total lack of regard for truth or facts in discourse and a willingness to disrespect any person who is deemed a threat to the views and way of life one holds as preeminent.

Our current disregard for actual discussion and relevance is evident from the recent outbursts and finger biting at town halls, to the toting of assault weapons to presidential appearances, to the photos of our President as Hitler and Stalin, to Joe Wilson’s outright debasement of President Obama during a speech to Congress. Thinly veiled threats of violence at protests, outright declarations of succession in Texas rallies and virulent rants calling for the assassination of our president by religious zealots are ubiquitous in the media and distract us from the actual facts and policies at hand.

The democratic process suffers when we are unable to focus on serious issues because outlandish inventions, and theories with no relationship to reality, dominate the media and our national debate. The majority of the country is held captive by the unhinged fringe element that is being manipulated by pundits, media personalities and politicians that are exploiting an ill-informed, fearful, conservative faction of society. It’s tragic to see those who are intelligent enough to know better use fear and misinformation to play to the cultural dislocation and fundamental misunderstanding of the issues of Americans who seek their guidance.

Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the Fox News team realize they are fanning the flames of violent and racist rage with their manipulation of fact and blatant fear mongering, yet feel no accountability for the environment of political and social hostility and aggression they are ushering in. Extremists now head the Republican Party which was once the party of intellectuals. They incite racist opposition to our President and promote theories he is not an actual citizen, his birth certificate is fake, he is an outsider usurping power of our government in order to subordinate White America. Glen Beck no longer uses coded messages to perpetuate this false anxiety, but said explicitly, “Obama is a racist” and “Obama hates white people.”

Of course, Beck chooses not to highlight the fact that Obama was birthed and raised by his White mother.

As a country we are experiencing a breakdown of civility and mutual respect in our society. I am fearful of what this new age of intolerance and antagonism will unleash upon us all. I wasn’t alive to see the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. or JFK, but I am terrified we will see a new round of violence erupt and claim innocent lives. I fear our President will meet a similar fate, and it keeps me awake at night, frightened and confused at how we got to this point. Weren’t we supposed to be past this division and hatred? It has already begun with the assassination of doctors who perform abortions at the hands of extreme Pro-Life groups. They share the same rhetoric of violence in the name of God and country that many Deathers, Birthers, Successionists, Tea baggers, Militia groups and religious fundamentalists share. I pray this country remains the bastion of diversity, freedom and tolerance that have made it the noblest political system in the world.

Those on the fringe are blinded by their own fears and use hate as a way to protect themselves from that fear. Eventually that hate gives them comfort and, even satisfaction, or worse, a sick pleasure and sense of superiority. The enlightened, reasoned discourse that is the foundation of Democracy is suffering at the hands of those who perpetuate illogical emotion over facts and honest debate. Our communities, our children and our future will suffer at the break down of respect, empathy, decency and compassion for one another that is spreading like a perilous virus.

For those who will give anything to win, the damage they are inflicting is of no consequence. That is the scariest fact of all. They are benefiting from the breakdown of all that makes our country great and they have no remorse for the destruction of all that this country has represented for so long to so many. Those who perpetuate our divergence from science, progress, rationality and a compassionate, civil society, do so with calculating purpose. A fearful, misinformed, misguided, electorate is exactly what they want.

It is a constituency they can bend and manipulate any way they choose. It is an electorate that is powerless to challenge the status quo they so greedily and effectively benefit from because it is a public that does not understand their own interests or posses the judgment to vote according to what is best for themselves and their families. In Other Words…to those that relish in the breakdown of an educated, informed electorate, who needs fact and logic when fear and loathing pass as legitimate discourse?

Interest Rates and the Perfect Society

2009-09-28T03:43:00.000-07:00

Written By: Josh Tremba
Painting By: F. Bate

Everybody knows that everyday we are writing a new chapter for our children's history books. Depending on what course is taken, the chapter can be described with a wide array of titles. Hopefully it will sound something like: "Good Times, Flying Cars and the New, Fixed Economy." If we are not careful it could take a more ominous tone: "The End of the Old American Way (and Why You Can't Ever Get A Loan Again.)." I apologize if these speculative titles sound like names of Bob Dylan songs, as I am not a history book writer, but in any case, only time will tell what the name of the chapter will be.

On the matter of school books, I can't help but remember my 8th grade economics class. The teacher was a balding, slightly overweight Polish man with a lisp. Rather than handing out a syllabus, he began by demonstrating his version of a WWF style atomic knee smash. This demonstration, I assumed, was intended to deter class disruptions and late homework. With that out of the way, he then began explaining why our capitalist economic system is fueled by the greed that is ingrained in each and every human DNA strand. Without this greed, the system would fail; likewise, without the system, greed would find itself unattended to. It appeared to him that because we are all greedy cavemen, the most powerful economic system in the world works in much the same manner as the Bedrock City Council, who's slogan I believe was; "He who hath fire, shall be our mayor." Even cavemen knew of the laws of supply and demand, and hence, the first capitalist system was born of round rocks and smoldering sticks.

We had no books in the class. I still wonder if the lack of books was due to that same capitalistic system, or if the teacher was just so mad at his union dues that he atomic knee smashed each and every book into pieces. We may never know. The irony lies in that his union, acting as a balance that tries to even the class scale, is a socialist ideal at heart. We all have learned that during the industrial revolution, poor work wages and conditions prevailed. In a simple synopsis, unions evolved into a force able to combat poor pay and horrible conditions with the threat of a united strike.

As long as citizens stay attentive to their environment, the collective masses hold the power of any economy. They earn the money and spend it. They are the cogs in the pocket watch and their bosses are the clock face that packages the time in a nice manner, with no real hand in keeping it precise. So what other options are there? Utopianism is an interesting system of government brought to north America by those wild Quakers, whose name alone conjures up ideas of the perfect social-economic system. Yet true perfectionism is next to impossible to find in anything in life, let alone in a government. Perfect government is not possible because people aren't perfect. So then what is this crazy idea of Utopianism that so enthralled the funny hat wearing Quakers of America's past?

Several Utopian ideals arose through history, but their basic consensus is this: an equal distribution of goods, with the total abolition of money, and the citizens only doing work which they enjoy, leaving plenty of time for arts and sciences. On the other hand, the dictionary simply states: "The views and habits of mind of a visionary or idealist, sometimes beyond realization." Utopianism remains 'beyond realization' for many reasons, but obviously not everyone is going to get work they enjoy. I mean, how many professional beer testers, and Hawian Tropic lotion appliers can their be in this world? And what if people are not happy with being equal with everyone else, and they want more? Simply put, greed is why this system will never work. It may be perfect, but humans are not, and thus a system that does not appeal to our natural tenancies is beyond realization.

It is sad to me that the word 'socialist' has become a faux pas in our society. Most people who supported socialist ideas through history weren't evil, they just had different morals and values that led them to believe that socialism was best for them. Socialist social programs in Europe certainly appear to be working. Medicare and the post office are socialist systems that seem to work. Who knows, it just might be possible for socialist and capitalist ideals to compliment each other in a society as close to utopia as we can get, a society that recognizes our human rights to freedom and equality, and also a system that concedes to the inherent imperfections we all have. So lets make those Quakers proud, and hopefully our children's history books will read "The Second Depression, and The Beginning of Utopia on Earth."

Apolitically Incorrect - A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Oil and Gas Lease Auction

2009-09-24T15:07:00.000-07:00

Written By: Michael Raysses

Greetings, folks. Welcome to Apolitically Incorrect. I will be your host and emcee, thanks to the good folks here at Chicks with Guns, who have asked me to write a political column for the magazine. My only problem with a “political column” is that I think it’s a dated notion. As far as I’m concerned, everything is political.

The thought that everything is political is a logical extension of the disintegration of the lines that once separated distinct topics into cozy realms. Remember the good old days when there was “news” and “entertainment”? Right, now what we get is “infotainment”—the ugly, ill-informed Siamese twin born of their unholy coupling. The offspring bears faint resemblance to its parents while providing none of the benefit of its lineage. For better or worse, I feel that the same fate has befallen politics. It has lost its place as a free-standing topic. And I would argue that this is the case no matter whose characterization of the term we use.

Personally, I like Ambrose Bierce’s definition best: “Politics is a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. It is the conduct of public affairs for private advantage.” It’s technically accurate while paying more than just lip service to the oxymoronic fate that has befallen the phrase “public service.”

You may well disagree with my idea, but if you consider the case of one Mr. Tim De Christopher, perhaps you’ll think otherwise. Oh, and when I refer to Tim’s case, I am not kidding—it’s The United States of America, Plaintiff, vs. Tim De Christopher, Defendant, Case #2:09cr00183DB. But I am getting a little ahead of myself here. Allow me to backtrack.

Back in December of last year, De Christopher was just your average environmentally active, 27 year-old economics major at the University of Utah. He had just completed a final exam when he was on his way to take part in an organized protest of an auction of oil and gas exploration leases offered by the Bureau of Land Management. Opponents of the proposed auction had two majors gripes with the proceeding: the amount of land involved was too broad in its scope, and the speed at which the auction had been put together virtually assured that the BLM wouldn’t be able to dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s that are federally mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency in situations like this.

Not surprisingly, they also felt that this was the Bush Administration’s version of a Blue Light Special, because the lands in question were pristine parcels that abutted Arches and Canyonlands National Parks in the southern and eastern parts of Utah. These tracts of land were (warning: gratuitous Latin phrase alert!) sui generis, as in ‘one-of-a-kind.’ Though the BLM buckled to pressure from a raft of environmental groups and reduced the size of its initial offering, the auction went off as scheduled.

This was the scenario posed to De Christopher that morning. A nameless foot soldier in the fight to preserve what little is left of Mama Nature’s prime real estate, he had grown tired of the futility of the environmentalists’ efforts. It was a feeling that was palpable when he arrived that morning. It was an emotion that took on razor sharpness when contrasted with the efficacy De Christopher aspired to. Feeling the bottomless gap between his morals and his actions, De Christopher paused.

And then lighting struck...

In a fit of anti-authoritarian brio, De Christopher infiltrated the auction as a means of disrupting what he viewed to be not only a fraudulent sale, but one that would irretrievably damage national natural treasures.

Surprisingly for De Christopher, gaining access to the proceedings proved to be relatively easy. Consistent with the BLM’s haste in putting this auction together, they neglected to enforce the standard security measures typically required. De Christopher showed his driver’s license, filled out a small form, was given a bidder’s paddle, and escorted in. (Personally, I can’t believe they didn’t make him at least demonstrate the Vulcan death grip or something.)

Once inside, he witnessed the auction process. Then, he soon began actually bidding on parcels, driving up their costs merely by waving his bidder’s paddle. But because his mission was to save the land, not just raise the price of having a shot at drilling and exploration, he decided to bring his ‘A’ game—De Christopher was in it to win it.

Which is exactly what he did. He proceeded to win 13 bids, totaling 22,000 acres, at a cost of $1.8 million. Sensing something was amiss, he was detained by the authorities, who then quickly released him into the arms of a hungry media longing for its next morsel. From the outset, De Christopher copped to his actions, and even went so far as to admit that the only reason he had committed the fraudulent bids was to save the imperiled land.

Public support sprung up for Tim faster than an oil speculator at a hastily prepared sale of oil and gas leases. Within a very short time, he was able to raise $100,000 through his website, Bidder70.org, to cover the cost of the initial payment to the BLM for the leases in question, as well as for what was sure to involve prospective legal defense costs.

Then on February 4th, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar invalidated the oil and gas leases that had been auctioned off, which for all intents and purposes could arguably be construed as the government’s admission of “my bad.”

But keep your eye on the bouncing ball, folks, because remember, everything is political, and when everything is political anything can happen, which is exactly what transpired here. Though the leases in question were voided by the feds, the man who felled the oil-and-gas-industry Goliath with a bidder’s paddle and did so without destroying, defiling, or otherwise desecrating anything, unless you count the derailed locomotive of greed that was expecting uncontested whacks at the piñata placed so generously before them by the Bush administration, that guy was the butt of the federal government’s idea of an April Fool’s joke.

Because on April 1, 2009, Tim was indicted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Utah for two counts of violating the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Act. (A lesser charge of wearing a flannel shirt to a government auction was considered but ultimately dropped.)

Let’s pause for a moment to review, shall we? The government conducts a highly questionable sale of oil and gas leases that it ultimately voids; yet later they decide to criminally prosecute the man who provided them the opportunity to reconsider and correct their reckless conduct by wielding a bidder’s paddle? (Paging Mr. Kafka, Mr. Franz Kafka!)

And then in a move that put the “crap” in craptacular, on April 3, the BLM levied an $81,000 assessment against Tim for the voided leases. And because that wasn’t surreal enough, they then withdrew the assessment a couple of months later.

Finally, on September 25 in a federal courthouse in Salt Lake City, a judge will hear the government’s motion to keep De Christopher from using what’s known as the necessity defense. This is a legal theory that claims he acted as he did out of the necessity of protecting the environment in the face of impending climate change. Basically, they don’t want a jury to hear about issues of protecting the environment and impending climate change. The government just wants the jury to know that Tim did what he did intentionally, with no regard for the context in which his decision was made. Why? Because if the jury hears those facts, they might actually find in Tim’s favor. And, God forbid, if they do that they may actually provide judicial notice of climate change as a matter of fact.
Oh.

Right about now you’re asking yourself “What’s that smell?” It’s not teen spirit, and it’s not napalm in the morning—it’s the stench of government in decay. And without going full-Ambrose Bierce on you, it is the conduct of public affairs for private advantage.

Now it’s safe to say that we as a nation have become used to diminished expectations. Even with the election of a man who is actually qualified to run the country, we know better than to expect much that even remotely approaches efficiency from our government and its agencies. But what we can’t condone is when our government is guilty of what in its best light looks like gross malfeasance, especially when they are given a chance to grant themselves a reprieve by a citizen who has the balls, heart, and spirit to act consonant with his moral compass, a device conspicuously absent from the government’s decision making process.

I have given up expecting bureaucracies like the BLM to actually do that which they are created to, which in this case is to manage federal energy sources in an environmentally sound way. (My italics.) What galls me most deeply is the wholesale lack of respect for resources present in this case. (Um, I don’t know whose italics those are.) And by resources, the untapped oil and gas that lies beneath the ground in Utah aren’t all I am referring to. I am talking about the very real, immeasurable and invaluable human resource of people like Tim De Christopher! (OK, that’s definitely my exclamation point.)

If we are ever going to extricate ourselves from the wringer we have wedged ourselves into, we need people like Tim De Christopher—inventive, committed, and compassionate—not in jail, his contributions to society neutralized while sapping limited resources by being incarcerated—but in the vanguard of the vital democracy we remember ourselves to be.

But De Christopher is just one guy. One extremely committed guy. And the funny thing is, before he infiltrated that auction and waved that paddle, he was a guy just like me. And just like you. And the momentum of that decision has resulted in the prospect for some real progress to be made in the corner of the political realm dealing with climate change via, of all things, the judicial branch.

It’s been said that two wrongs don’t make a right. This case proves an exception to that rule. The BLM failed in its responsibility to adhere to federally-imposed environmental guidelines before holding the auction. Tim, by his own admission, represented himself to be a qualified bidder, which he wasn’t. When the Department of the Interior voided the sale, the two negatives perpetrated by both parties multiplied to create a positive—the lands in question are safe for the time being. The decision to prosecute Tim is the perfect final touch for those who like a little closure with their lunacy. That Brett Tolman, the U.S. Attorney who is prosecuting this case, wants to participate in some perverse act of reverse-alchemy by attempting to spin political straw out of environmental gold is regrettable. Our focus now must be on what we can do to support Tim in this scenario.

Tim told me that what moved him to act as he did was the realization that he could actually handle serving time to save the imperiled lands. What he couldn’t live with was waking up ten years down the road, seeing those lands ransacked by the oil and gas industries, and live with the knowledge that he had the chance to do something about it and didn’t.

Well, we have a chance to endorse Tim right here, right now.

Go to www.Bidder70.org. Make a donation, write your representative. And if that leaves you feeling like you want to do more, then go to www.PeacefulUprising.org and really throw your oars in the water. And if that’s not enough, just ask yourself what it would take for you to align your morals with your actions. Nothing could be more political.

Michael Raysses is a writer, actor, and National Public Radio commentator; he lives in Los Angeles, California. He can be reached at MichaelRaysses@hotmail.com. (Author’s note: no animals were harmed in the writing of this column.)

Dick Armey

2009-09-23T11:39:00.000-07:00

Written By: Kelly Opdycke
(Editor, KO Zine)

President Barack Obama has finally decided the time is right for a health care media blitz. I’m not so sure what the wait was, but let’s hope Americans can get more out of him than we have in these last few months of the health care debate. On the other side of the debate, those curiously named protesters the teabaggers (why would you call yourselves that??) are not throwing in their socialism-hating, research-lacking platforms quite yet.

Interestingly enough, those leading (manipulating?) these confused, passionate individuals into protests, including the 9/12 march in Washington, DC, have little or nothing in common with the marchers. FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey is one of those leaders.

According to their website, FreedomWorks has been around since 1984. Their slogan states, “Lower taxes. Less government. More freedom.” And they’re not afraid to use George W. Bush as a reference. Ok, so far not for me, but sounds fair enough.
Then former House Majority Leader Dick Armey comes in. If you missed “Bill Moyers Journal” last week, you may know little else about him other than his congressional career. On his show that premiered last Friday, Moyers tore into Armey’s credibility on some key issues he supports by highlighting just how different Armey is from all of the teabaggers.

Like so many politicians, Armey has lived a privileged life throughout most of his career. How so, you ask? Well, for starters, he has been lucky enough to receive government-supported health care, first as a professor straight out of college and later as a congress member.

Or, in Moyers words, "Dick Armey is the epitome of those people with power and privilege who are insured against the vicissitudes of life and want no government assistance for any suffering except their own."

FreedomWorks isn’t alone in the teabagging world. The Koch Family, who accumulated their wealth from the oil industry, funds Americans for Prosperity, another organization involved in the protests. And, oh yes, you will also see this organization sponsoring pro-drilling grassroots events across the country. How curious.
I have to say that the teabaggers (I still can’t deal with that word) and I will probably agree on very little. However, I’ve always thought that a good debate comes with knowledge on the issue. Many may disagree.

Do the research yourself. Then, if you still feel the same, create your own group. Just please no more words with a reference to what drunk frat guys do to each other when someone passes out.

Sources:
Think Progress - Lobbyists Planning Tea Parties
Huffington Post - Bill Moyers' Tea Party
CNN - Tea Party
Freedomworks - Dick Armey

Why The Resignation of Van Jones Matters

2009-09-14T02:59:00.000-07:00

Written By: Kelly Opdycke
(Editor, KO Zine)

The Obama administration recently lost one of its most valuable staff members. Van Jones, the now former Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), gave up his post last weekend, but since most of you probably have no idea that the CEQ even exists you probably also have no idea of the great asset this administration just lost.

After attending Yale law school, Jones began his career as a San Francisco-based activist, protesting police brutality and joining a group committed to Marxist politics. He continued to dedicate his life to human rights issues and, following Hurricane Katrina, developed a grassroots organization addressing Black issues called ‘Color of Change.’

More recently, he combined his activism for the working class with environmentalism to promote eco-capitalism. His green-collar jobs campaign works to lift people out of poverty with the creation of green jobs. He wrote “The Green Collar Economy” on this topic.

Jones spent half his life building his resume to get him to the White House, but it only took about a month for Glenn Beck and company to tear him down. Two specific issues are what those highly-respected commentators chose to focus on in their smear campaign.

First, there was the 9/11 truther conspirators that Jones chose to align himself with. He has said he doesn’t actually believe that the Bush administration created 9/11, but it was probably a mistake to even associate with these fringe activists.

Second, he probably shouldn’t call Republicans assholes. Last week, when asked why the Bush Administration was more pushy than Obama’s, Jones simply stated, “Well the answer to that is, they’re assholes.” What he really meant is that Republicans tend to be stubborn and more willing to piss people off. Instead, he said assholes. I can’t say I disagree, but probably not the best word.

Citing this smear campaign as a distraction to the Obama administration (nevermind all of the positives in his career), Jones officially stepped down September 5. I am tired of this ‘distraction’ excuse. Distraction or not, Jones could have used his experience to help this administration accomplish something. Instead, they let him go. And, it seems, without a fuss.

Of course, unlike most of us, Jones has plenty of other options now that he’s unemployed. Blogger Arianna Huffington hopes that Jones will rediscover his voice on the outside, now that he no longer has the White House’s approval to worry about. As Huffington put it, since he no longer has to focus on detailed tax credits, he’ll have more time for speaking and firing up the public. Something the left is in dire need of these days.

So, Van Jones, let’s put this resignation to good use. I’ve heard there are some crazy town hall assholes who are ready for a battle.

Setting the Example: An Open Letter to the Republican Party

2009-09-11T02:54:00.000-07:00

Written By: David Carr

Let the Divisive Rhetoric End and the Discourse Begin!

Yesterday was the first day back to school for many young people across the country. President Barack Obama decided he wanted to give a kind of pep-talk to kids as they went back into

their classrooms. He wanted to talk about the responsibility they had to themselves with regards to their own education. In my mind, when I heard this I thought to myself, you can't get anymore non-partisan than that. I mean we as Americans want all kids to do well in school, right? I could not have been more wrong. I honestly thought this would take the "heat" off of the health care debate but instead it was nothing more than a bit of gasoline for some in the Republican Party. Right wing talk show hosts urged parents to take their children out of school. Folks on the far right said it was a speech of indoctrination.

Many suggested that the President was going to turn the nation's youth into socialists' and communists. Does anyone else by the way find the interchangeable use of these two political ideologies as funny as I do?

I digress; the bottom line is, not even a speech/pep-talk designed to simply motive students could be seen by some on the right as just an innocent gesture by our President. It was turned into a political food fight of sorts in an effort to once again play the blame game. As a tax paying citizen of our country and as an educator I am here to say I have had enough. Just as President Obama challenged our youth I am going to challenge the leaders of the Republican Party. President Obama challenged the youth of the nation to take responsibility for their actions when it comes to their education and I want to challenge the rank and file leadership of the Republican Party. I want to challenge you to take responsibility for the country you represent as so called leaders in our democracy.

In a democracy there must be room for disagreement and debate. That is the very spirit of a democracy but since the election there has been a fringe element that has been growing in this country and that element, seems incapable of having any kind of civil discourse. The debate over

health care has degenerated into shouting matches across the county. We really have not seen or heard a specific plan for health care yet, but already folks don't like it. Or in some cases folks really do like it but can't tell you what they like about it or what it even is. Sarah Palin resigned as Governor of Alaska to become a blogger and chat online about how Obama's health care plan was going to be setting up death panels. I am not sure what this even means but a "death panel" would seem to be the opposite of "health care."

It also seemed, to be a very irresponsible thing to say from a woman who was once running for the vice-presidency of these United States. Thankfully your plumber named "Joe" is slowly but surely entering the "where are they now" files but your prime time radio host with the most, Rush Limbaugh can't seem to separate fact from fiction. Even when your Republican chair Michael Steele tried to explain, that Rush was merely an entertainer of sorts, as a radio personality (he was right by the way) he had to apologize the day after and had to claim that yes, Rush is indeed a tried and true political figure to be taken seriously.

A group of folks calling themselves "The Birthers" have claimed that Obama is not even an American citizen. They have been shown his birth certificate but it does not make any difference to these folks. Add to all of this, the rhetoric of "I want my country back", and you have the makings of an unstable element that is not being reigned in by more responsible voices. I am not sure where some people feel the country has gone but let me assure everyone it is indeed still here and it is in need of help.

Because the political discourse has broken down, I will ask or rather demand that the members of the Republican Party start taking responsibility for some within their party. I am not asking for folks to hold hands and sing Kumbaya. I am not naive enough to believe that Republicans and Democrats can agree on everything, but the issues we are facing are ones where we can have a civil debate, which can hopefully lead us to solutions. Questioning whether or not our president is a citizen, saying he will be setting up death panels and calling him a socialist, a communist and comparing him to Hitler does not move the country forward. By not reigning in your "entertainers", (yes your Glen Beck's and your Limbaugh's are entertainers, nothing more, and nothing less), you keep us from moving forward.

You are keeping us frozen in a state of polarization at best. At it's worst, this type of rhetoric can be divisive and dangerous. I will also say that it was wrong when folks on the left did it. It was wrong when the fringe element of the left portrayed George Bush as Hitler and it is wrong when the fringe element of the right does it now with Obama. I know for a fact that there are many reasonable leaders within the Republican Party who want to see the discourse taken to a higher level, yet they refuse to chastise their own. Again I say, Obama wants our youth to show some responsibility and I want our adults to set the example.

To be fair, I have concerns and criticisms for our President. I want to see some light at the end of the tunnel with regards to this economic crisis and I am also hoping he spells out his health care plan to the American public in chapter and verse but I am not asking to see his birth certificate nor do I think he has kidnapped the country. I mean really, when you shout "I want my country back" are you talking about health care or are you talking about the fact that America has been and continues to move forward and change with regards to shifting attitudes towards race, class and difference? Change can be tough to handle but it is also what makes this country great. You can be a team player and help shape the present and future or you can dwell in the past. And again, I firmly believe that being a team player does not mean we agree on everything but when we disagree we must make sense! That is all I ask. We must have reasons for our disagreements and they must be grounded in a sense of reality .

I enjoyed watching Obama's speech to our nation's youth. I have a stirring feeling that Obama and his secretary of education Arne Duncan want to really turn this nation's concern about public education into real, tangible commitment. I truly liked his message of taking responsibility. It's a message I have often tried to instill in the students I have taught. It is that message of responsibility that needs to be taken seriously by our politicians on both sides of the aisle. In the coming weeks my hope; nay my demand is that the rhetoric of birth certificates and panels of doom give way to calm, cool, reasonable discourse.

If our kids can do it, I know we as adults can do it. Our President expects our young people to do the right thing when it comes to representing themselves with regards, to their education. I expect the same thing from my political leaders be they Republican or Democrat when it comes to moving the country forward. Now is the time, for the adults, to set the example.

In Other Words… A Journey of Redemption: From Orphaned Child Soldier to International Hip Hop Star and Activist

2009-09-03T17:49:00.000-07:00

Written By: Sara Ledesma

In modern society we recognize some things should always be diametrically opposed: Children and Violence, children and exploitation, Religion and hate, religion and intolerance. Yet around the globe religion is used to divide citizens, provoke war, justify unspeakable acts of terror and condone mass homicide. Children are targeted for exploitation precisely because of the vulnerability of their innocence.

Africa, a continent plagued by a history of civil warfare, knows the barbarism fueled by religious and ethnic division leaves no true survivors. Children do not survive childhood with their families, or their innocence, unbroken. But they can survive the hell of mayhem and destruction with their souls and dignity intact. Emmanuel Jal is proof of that possibility. Having survived the terrifying plight of being a child soldier himself, he is now working to ensure the broken children of war have the chance to grow up with the dignity that is the birthright of every human child.

Emmanuel Jal walked through the demented fires of a living hell, was forced to participate in the most dehumanizing acts one person can perpetrate against another, and came out the other side an activist and artist determined to right every wrong, to cleanse himself, and his beloved Africa, of sins committed as a “war child” in the Sudanese army. He entered the army an innocent casualty of the lust for power that fueled the civil wars of Sudan. Bolstered by rhetoric of religious and ethnic intolerance, the SPLA inducted orphaned Emmanuel. Warlords placed an assault rifle in his hand, where there should have been a ball or a pencil. Any innocence left unmarred by the murder of his mother, rape of his aunt, and burning of his home and village evaporated as he became a child soldier at seven years of age.

Emmanuel escaped on foot with over 300 other “lost boys”. They walked for more than three months to find sanctuary from the front lines of war. They scavenged for snails, snakes, leaves, roots and vulture carcasses to fend off starvation. Emmanuel dreamed of tasting the tender meat of a good friend as hunger drove his mind to envision cannibalism to appease its agony. Those who starvation did not slaughter, were executed by animal attacks, disease or military ambush. 16 survived the death walk to reach the safety of a refugee camp. There Emmanuel found safe haven from the torment of a war that had held him prisoner to the vilest of human nature.

He crossed into a new reality where hope, life and love were once again possible. Rescued by English aid worker Emma McCune, Emmanuel’s life, and soul, were saved. Emma educated Emmanuel, setting him free from the illiteracy and ignorance that had allowed him to be manipulated by scheming warlords. While other kids were learning to read and add and write, Emmanuel was foraging for food, raiding villages and fighting a bloody, vicious war.

Education gave Emmanuel fresh eyes to see the war for what it was: a senseless, wicked prison that held his people captive in a cycle of poverty, starvation, disease, lack of infrastructure, lack of clean water, lack of access to employment, education and medical care. Emmanuel saw himself as one of 4 million made homeless, and hopeless, by decades of perpetual war. He recognized how his thirst for revenge had been influenced by the religious and ethnic rhetoric of the SPLA designed to convert him from a traumatized boy into a merciless soldier. He realized it was a lust for oil, diamonds and gold for which villages, lives, and a country’s future, were desecrated.

Emmanuel felt used and remorseful. He forgave the soldiers that raped his aunt as he watched, a scared, confused 5 year old boy. He forgave them for burning into ashes the village he had called home. He forgave them for scattering the family he loved and destroying the world where he had been so happy. Innocence, family and community defiled, he was fed lies that nourished a thirst for revenge. A 7 year old boy, armed with hatred and an AK 47 machine gun taller than him, would go on to exact his revenge over the next 5 years. As a little boy soldier he would dwell in the darkest recesses of the human spirit. Atrocities committed against Life, God, and his own countrymen—fellow Africans he could only recognize as the enemies who had stolen everything from him.

Emmanuel survived five years of the front lines of two Sudanese civil wars and a terrifying death march to make it back to humanity. Into his story of redemption comes Emma McCune, a British aid worker who smuggled Emmanuel into Nairobi, adopted him and sent him to school. Salvation came through education and redemption came through telling his story. Through music, a documentary and an autobiography he exposed his private pain. He told the story of war worn Africa for all those who could not share their heart breaking stories and voice their dreams for change and peace.

Emmanuel is now an international hip hop star who sings of the suffering of life in a death zone riddled by war. An award-winning documentary and an autobiography, both titled “War Child”, document the evils perpetuated against a people trying to hold onto family, life and hope while ensnared in an endless cycle of military conflict. His critically acclaimed third album, also titled “War Child” dropped in 2008 and he is working on his 4th album now. Emmanuel is also an activist who braves the torment of telling his story to audiences across the globe so he can raise money for his non-profit foundation Gua Africa. Gua means “peace” in his native Nuer, a southern Sudanese dialect. An innocent soul, soiled by the crimes of war is finally able to bring about the healing power of peace.

Emmanuel‘s first CD, Gua, brought the plight of the children of war to the international community. He chose to turn his terror into triumph after realizing the power of music to heal, to cross ethnic and religious boundaries and speak to a part of the human soul that is common to all—regardless of color, creed or country. He sings of an ailing Africa besieged by a cycle of civil war and generations of children raised by constant violence, hungry, orphaned, violated and afraid.

Religious and ethnic rhetoric disguise an Africa strapped by a brutal struggle for resources, power and control. Children orphaned, women and girls raped, boys forced to commit the sins they’ve witnessed done to their own families and villages, unto others. And he sings of the aid worker, and second mother, Emma McCune who saved his life: “What would I be, if Emma never rescued me? What would I be…another starving refugee.” He sings of his beloved savior who dedicated her life to the children of war. It is a pull you up onto your feet and make you dance track you want to replay over and over again. It ends with Emmanuel telling you to “Go save a child”. Emma saved 150 children in war ravaged Sudan, going as far as to marry a Sudanese guerilla commander and convince him not to use children as soldiers.

Emmanuel is doing his part to save children through his charity Gua Africa. They are building a primary school, teacher training center and secondary school in his hometown of Leer, Sudan. It is named Emma Academy, in honor of his beloved Emma McCune who passed away in a car accident. Gua also supports another school, Kariobangi, which serves 400 kids orphaned by war who would not have access to education without Emmanuel’s organization. Emmanuel is currently on a limited hunger strike, where he only eats one meal a day until he raises enough money to finish the academy. His “lose to win” hunger campaign is a tribute to many in his country who eat only one meal daily out of necessity. www.gua-africa.org

Through his music and his foundation Emmanuel is fighting for a new Africa. Gua is building schools and sponsoring the education of ex-child soldiers and refugees so they become artists, engineers, teachers and doctors. These survivors of Africa’s war riddled legacy are studying so they can create the change they want to see in Africa’s future. Emmanuel says the old men who are orchestrating wars in Africa will die soon, and he is doing his part to ensure the next generation can resurrect the demolished institutions needed to bring Africa into a new age of prosperity, progress, health and peace.

For some in the most disadvantaged and heinous parts of the world, their circumstances drag them so deep into the depths of hell they lose sight of their own humanity. It is not a choice any human would make to live and suffer the violence of war. It is, however, possible to spin a life of inflicted savagery into forgiveness and a quest for peace. It is possible to live through the hell of war and dedicate oneself to doing everything humanly possible to ensure no child has to endure what you have survived. Emmanuel chose to turn pain into music…the more beautiful because of the deep, raw emotion and profound message it sings to the world. His music is a universal call for healing, peace and a brighter tomorrow.

In other words…the human soul has an almost unfathomable capacity for resilience and redemption. It is this potential to right our wrongs, to weave hope out of despair, to build peace out of violence and violation that proves peace can one day be a reality the whole world can share. Give peace a chance. And while you are at it, give Emmanuel’s albums "Gua" and "War Child" a chance. It’s some of the rawest, most insightful lyrics, spread over some of the most bumping beats, you will hear in music today. It’s a rare cry for a return to the dignity of humanity.

More info - http://www.emmanueljal.com/

The President Has Lost His Roots

2009-08-27T03:52:00.000-07:00

Written By: Kelly Opdycke
(Editor, KO Zine)

Over the past couple of weeks, the Democrats have tried to use town hall meetings to explain in more detail what the new health care bill may look like and to answer any questions regarding the bill. Unfortunately, conservative protesters have taken over most of the town halls, which has helped in confusing Americans.

This has left many Democrats wondering where their supporters are. President Barack Obama won the presidency largely with grassroots programs, but, for whatever reason, many of these programs have slowed, or stopped, their support. So, what are those of us ready for change in the health care system to do?

First, Obama needs to deduce what it is he wants in the health care reform bill. Until he figures this out he will continue to be unclear and confusing to most Americans. Most of the public just wants the truth, plain and simple. Skirting around the issue encourages distrust.

And that confusion and distrust brings me to my second point. The Democrats must remember that a small number of their opponents are misinformed, confused Americans that could be won over with facts. The larger portion who show up to town hall meetings to protest with Obama-Hitler propaganda did not show up to be more informed. They’re there for a fight.

And fighting is pointless. As Barney Frank (D-MA) so eloquently put it at a town hall meeting, “Trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dining room table.”

On a side note, all Americans have the right to bear arms (and in some states carry unconcealed weapons), but it only takes one stupid person to make all of you look like fools. Only one person has to snap.

Finally, supporters of health care reform – no matter if it’s single-payer, public-option or something else – need to stop their indolence. Democratic House member James Clyburn compared the town hall protestors to those whom he dealt with during the civil rights movement.

"I have seen this kind of hate before. I have seen this discussion before," he said. "I have seen snarling dogs going after people who were trying to peacefully assemble. I have seen the eyes of people who were being spat upon."

The movement to defend Americans’ right to health care needs to start and it needs to start now. More supporters should be at these town hall meetings, helping to expose the truth behind the protesters lies.

The Republicans have the Democrats backed into a corner, but both parties have forgotten one thing. The Democrats have the majority. They need to do something with it.

The Post-Bush Years

2009-08-16T22:01:00.001-07:00

Written By: Frazer Hughes

I just wasn’t old enough when I saw a big brass Saddam get pulled over by a bulldozer on TV to do anything about it the. I wasn’t smart enough, I wasn’t in the position to be heard. But I knew, and you knew, too that something was wrong. Everything about the Bush years were wrong. I was in high school when it all happened.

I was 17 years old when the planes hit the tower, and the whole time, probably less than 24 hours after the tower collapsed, I was scared. I knew that the US government was going to try and take everything away. Half of my friends at the time were on extacy rubbing their nipples with boa feathers and having vics vapo rub blown into their eye balls, and I was still stuck in the 80’s with black flag and dead kennedys listening to what they were saying, and in the bush years, after 9-11, everything they were saying was truer then than in the 80’s.

There we were, a generation, we didn’t know what to do. I think we all wanted an new 60’s, didn’t we. We saw ourselves in the streets, we were throwing smoke grenades and rocks at the whitehouse, but it never happened. We didn’t know how. There was no alternative establishment, no anti-establishment mentality that would support us. Was it too much exstacy? Where were our resources. In the 60’s, it seemed like everyone did it themselves.

Now we are past the Bush years, we have something very fucking cool. We have Obama. And that IS fucking cool. But we don’t have anything else. We don’t care about healthcare, and we certainly don’t care about the financial crisis. Where is the money in my pocket? Where are the people who care? It’s you and me. We all care. We finally had our first say. We chose Obama. We chose a new direction. We choose not to go with McCain and Palin. Thank god for that! Our generation at least didn’t let McCain/Palin happen. That is our first victory. Lets not let it be our last. We aren’t in high school anymore. We saw what happens when two planes hit some towers in New York and we watched as Bush took away everything and started wars all over the place. Who did this? It was our parents. Our parents were the ones that voted for him, voted FOR the war, voted for the other war, they voted for Reagan, and we couldn’t do anything about it. And now we are on our own.

We don’t have any money. We don’t have the alternative infrastructure to get our voices heard. We have to create it. We have a start. We have CHICKS WITH GUNS, goddamnit. And now you have to go out and shove it down their throats. If you write poetry, if you make music, FUCK RANDOM HOUSE, FUCK CAPITOL RECORDS, FUCK DAVID GEFFEN!! Send in what you have, get it out. We have what no one ever had in the 60’s. We have the internet! And it is free. You have your voice, you have your talent, you have your time, and there is more to change than we can.

Stand up now, say "FUCK YOU!" I AM GOING TO DO IT MYSELF. IT’S OURS. TAKE IT AND SHOVE DOWN THEIR THROAT. WE HAVE THE TALENT, WE HAVE THE VOICE. IT’S OUR TIME. TAKE IT. CREATE OUR OWN LEDGENDS.

Health Care - We Have Options

2009-08-13T14:32:00.000-07:00

Written By: Kelly Opdycke
(Editor, KO Zine)

Health care. All of us are probably tired of hearing about it by now. The problem is that most Americans only take the time to access mainstream media and they tend to focus less on the type of health care we may or may not be getting and more on the government and the politics among its members. A high percentage of the population is left with a whole lot of drama and no hard data to show for it.

Should the Democrats achieve some sort of health care reform, it would be the most significant domestic legislation since the Social Security Act of 1935 developed by Franklin D. Roosevelt. This piece of legislation gave the Democrats the majority in the House for a generation. Republicans, despite what the majority of Americans want, are doing their best to stop huge reform from happening.

With little to show of a health care solution on their end, a bipartisan bill introduced in 2007 by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) has received Republican support. The bill would require Americans to purchase insurance through their employers and does not include a public option. I guess those who are unemployed or freelancers are on their own.
The solution that everyone is too afraid to push for, is single-payer health care. Originally, it seemed as if the Obama administration backed this, but as the health care debate evolves they have backed off tremendously. Some say the reason for this timidity is that Americans automatically link single-payer with socialism.

Single-payer involves payment to doctors and hospitals from a public fund. Private insurers would no longer exist, allowing for more equal coverage throughout the population. No more worrying about which doctors or hospitals you can and can’t go to. Wherever you are, if you need medical attention, you’ll get it. And the government pays, not you.

What many do not realize is that a fully-functioning, single-payer system already exists for US veterans. Veterans receive the best medical attention possible and most would agree that all other Americans deserve the same. This system has shown private insurers do not have to be the answer.

According to the World Health Organization, the US ranks 37th among health care systems in the world. While it’s not always right to follow the leader, when it comes to health care whatever the US is doing does not work. Drastic change may be scary for some, but without it quality of life and life expectancy will only get worse. If you look at the 36 countries that outrank the US, you’ll see that most have some sort of universal coverage.

A public option is ideal, but it’s not a quick fix. The cost of health care must be controlled. While estimates vary, something like $1.3 trillion is spent per year on health care in the US. Even the most head-in-the-clouds idealist doesn’t believe that the US economy can support this. The cost of health care, especially pharmaceuticals, must decrease. Negotiations with the pharmaceutical companies and the Obama administration are underway, but there are conflicting reports on how successful said meetings are so far.

The healthcare plan currently being discussed offers an opportunity to buy a public insurance plan, but private insurers will also be in the picture. So, basically, the more money you have the better the coverage you receive. But I guess that’s the American way.

Find out more:

http://www.nytimes.com

http://www.truthdig.com

http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/socjustice.html#1004611

In Other Words… There Should Never Be A Fine Line Between Church and State

2009-08-10T02:31:00.000-07:00

Written By: Sara Ledesma

The brilliant political minds who masterminded the construction of our country deserve resounding praise for one of their finest founding tenets: the separation of Church and State. How marvelously fortuitous to be a citizen in a country where you are without fear of being held captive to the subjective interpretation of morality or religious beliefs of another person or entity!

Which one of us can deny the ingenuity of guaranteeing protection against the tyranny of one’s values over another, the claim of moral superiority of one religious philosophy over another, the hegemony of one absolute point of view? Those shrewd political strategists who brought the ideal of freedom, equality and justice to life in the creation of the United States of America knew one thing with absolute certainty: Freedom starts with our heads, our hearts and our souls. If we have no freedom to believe as we choose, to define morality, spirituality and our own concept of God, for ourselves, we will never genuinely experience freedom.

To fully comprehend the absolute necessity for separation between Church and State as a pre-existing condition of freedom and Democracy, we only have to look at the disastrous consequences wreaked upon our government when the distinct line between the two is blurred.

Enter the religious right and it’s self-righteous, minions in the Republican Congress. Beginning with President Ronald Regan it has become advantageous, and accepted, in Republican politics to legislate morality, based on a subjective interpretation of a conservative, Christian, religious doctrine. Flash forward to current times, it has become the solid basis upon which the Republican platform is built. Consequence for all citizens, regardless of political persuasion: the eradication of the crucial, freedom-safeguarding, separation of Church and State. What began as a sanctimonious crusade to legislate, and thereby legally control, the morality of you and I, backfired heinously when politicians elected on their self-proclaimed pious values set themselves up as the moral standard by which we should all aspire and then refused to embody those same values.

These law-making hypocrites condescendingly told us how “good, Christian” people with family values should behave, and then proceeded to behave exactly the opposite in their personal. Arrogant enough to believe they were above the laws they sought to tyrannically impose upon us, they became exposed as hypocritical examples of men who lack any integrity or values.

I fear living in a country where someone’s personal interpretation of religion, values, or morality becomes my lawfully mandated way of life. As citizens of the United States of America, our constitution guarantees us protection against such dangerous religious tyranny. Why should publicly recognized moral failures be the ones to dictate religious morality?

It's wrong to drag a politician’s personal life into the public spotlight, especially if it will negatively impact their family. The personal choices an elected official makes are not the business of the constituents he or she serves—as long as it does not adversely affect the job they are elected to perform. If a legislator decides to have an affair, for example, it is between that person, their conscience and their family. It only becomes a matter of public concern when that politician is asserting himself as a defender of family values, or herself, as a model of religious and moral piety.

It's the arrogant and insincere hypocrisy that adds salt to the wound of the transgression these politicians make against the constitutionally protected distinction between Church and State. It is the assertion of moral superiority to their counterparts in the Democratic Party, and their opponents in their own party, that brings their personal lives into the public. When a politician’s personal choices and private behavior become political, it is a danger to all whom cherish the freedom of thought and belief our country is loved and envied for by people throughout the world. To these self-purportedly, pious lawmakers I say: stick to your job making policy and law; and leave religious and family values to us and our families. We can’t do a worse job determining our own guiding principles in our lives then you are doing in yours.

To illustrate the point, a few case studies: Five Republican congressmen who dared to define for us what was “moral,” while clandestinely violating those same values themselves. Have these supposedly devout Christians ever heard the biblical teaching: Those in glass houses should not throw stones?

Newt Gingrich

The Facts:

•He branded the Democratic Party as: "decadent," "permissive," "sick," "selfish" and, of course, "liberal."

•He vehemently demanded Clinton resign for having an affair with a staffer.

Hypocrisy Highlight:

•At the same time he vilified Clinton for sleeping with someone other than his wife, and charged that his personal sexual exploits made him unfit to do his job as a public servant, the Georgia Republican was on his second marriage and carrying on a secret affair with the young Capitol Hill clerk who later became his third wife.

•In 2007, he admitted that he was cheating on his wife while simultaneously chastising President Clinton for consorting with Monica Lewinsky.

Today: Gingrich is a spokesman for the Republican Party and a possible Presidential candidate in 2012.

Paul Stanley, (Senator, TN)

The Facts:

•This southern lawmaker resigned from the state Senate just last week after an investigation into an extortion case exposed his adulterous affair with a 22-year-old intern.

•Stanley‘s disgraceful exit statement: "Due to recent events, I have decided to focus my full attention on my family and resign my Senate seat effective August 10,"

•His Mistress’ boyfriend, Joel Watts, is charged with trying to extort $10,000 from Stanley in April. Watts allegedly threatened to release naked photos the Senator took of the intern to the media if Stanley did not pay up.

•Stanley is a married father of two children.

Hypocrisy Highlight:

•He advocated against funding for Planned Parenthood citing his sanctimonious belief that unmarried people should not have sex.

•The conservative legislator sponsored failed measures to ban gay couples from adopting children. Being gay apparently offends his sincere dedication to traditional family values.

•The lawmakers patronizing excuse for his hypocrisy: “And just because I fell far short of what God's standard was for me and my wife, doesn't mean that that standard is reduced in the least bit."

Mark Sanford (R-NC):

The Facts:

•This self-proclaimed believer in the sanctity of the family, pursued a clandestine affair with a women from Argentina, flying to South America to visit her on numerous occasions, all while participating in marriage counseling to save his failing marriage.

•Sanford has been married for nearly 20 years to the mother of his four sons.

•Sanford’s wife, Jenny, was her husband’s political adviser for most of his career. She is cited as a major player in crafting his political success.

•He disappeared over Father’s Day weekend to rendezvous with his mistress in Argentina, not providing any information about his whereabouts to his four sons or his confused staff.

•He lied to the public he was elected to serve, as well as the staff who aids him in running the state, about where he was during his irresponsible abandonment of his professional duties.

•Sanford held a press conference to “confess” his sins, once they were exposed by an investigative reporter. He apologized first to his mistress and, later, his wife.

•His wife’s comment on his family values:”… the greatest legacy I will leave in this world is the character of the children I, or we, leave behind. It is for that reason that I deeply regret the recantations of my husband Mark, and their potential damage to our children.”
Hypocrisy Highlight:

•Governor Sandford portrayed himself as a champion of conservative, Christian, family values to get elected in South Carolina, and then eagerly discarded those values for an Argentinean lover he enjoyed a romance with while his wife raised his 4 children and diligently worked as his political advisor.

•Stanford Called for Clinton to resign, declaring his extramarital affair made him unfit to continue to hold office. Now that he himself has been exposed as an adulterous politician, Sanford doesn’t feel he should be held to the same standard.

Today: The South Carolina Governor seems determined to continue his term in office, despite being shown as a fraud to the principles upon which he was elected.

John Ensign: (R-NV)

The Facts:

•John Ensign publicly acknowledged his covert affair with a woman on his staff. Like Stanley, a man involved with the woman—this time the woman’s husband—demanded money from the lawmaker to keep the matter out of the media.

•Senator Ensign had an affair with the wife of his own administrative assistant and long time friend, Doug Hampton.

•Ensign transferred his staffer and friend to another position (without telling either Doug Hampton or the new employer the reason) so he could have sex with his mistress more easily and frequently.

•Senator Ensign employed the teenage son of his mistress, Cynthia Hampton. The young man was paid $5,400 according to Federal Election Commission records. No one on the Commission, or from Ensign’s office, has stepped forward to explain what services the Hamptons’ son did to receive this paycheck.

•Cynthia Hampton’s salary escalated during the time she and Ensign were committing adultery.

•Ensign’s parents paid out nearly $100,000 to the Hamptons. This money was supposed to keep cuckolded Doug Hampton quiet. After receiving the money, Doug Hampton blew the scandal open by going straight to the media.

•Ensign publicly destroyed two families with his extra marital affair.

•Senator Ensign, and his wife Darlene, have three children.

•Sinner Ensign’s remorse: “I deeply regret and am very sorry for my actions.”

•Previous to his outing as a hypocrite, Top of FormEnsign received a 100 percent rating from the Christian Coalition.

Hypocrisy Highlights:

•He fervently called for Clinton to resign for having an extramarital affair.

•Ensign zealously impugned Sen. Larry Craig when he was caught in a sex scandal.

•If he has the courage of his convictions, why doesn’t Ensign resign? Easy answer: He is a hypocrite who tells others how to behave, but feels the same rules don’t apply to him.

•Ensign declared: “Marriage is the cornerstone on which our society was founded. For those who say that the Constitution is so sacred that we cannot or should not adopt the Federal Marriage Amendment, I would simply point out that marriage, and the sanctity of that institution, predates the American Constitution and the founding of our nation.”

•Ensign is a born-again Christian and member of Promise Keepers, a male evangelical group that promotes fidelity.

Today: Ignoring his arrogant hypocrisy, John Ensign has yet to resign for the same peccadillo for which he vilified Bill Clinton and Larry Craig. Evidence is quickly accumulating that he concealed his affair through the misuse of public funds. He is up for reelection in 2012.

David Vitter: (R-LA)

The Facts:

•Vitter's phone number was found five times in phone records for the upscale brothel run by the now-famous D.C. Madame

•The Canal Street Bordello in New Orleans also claims Vitter as a former client.

•Vitter issued a statement on July 9, 2007 admitting: "This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible." He added that he has already made peace with his wife and his God.

•David and his wife Wendy have four children.

•The conservative Family Research Council presented Vitter with an award for his diligence in preserving family values.

Hypocrisy Highlight:

•The first line of his official biography reads, "David Vitter is dedicated to making life better for his young family and all Louisiana families.

•Vitter campaigned by promising to protect “the sanctity of marriage."

•Vitter co-authored the "Federal Marriage Act" that sought to prohibit courts from interpreting same-sex marriage laws, and said of marriage, "I don't believe there's any issue that's more important than this one."

•He contrasted himself to impious Louisiana politicians of the past by portraying himself as a holier-than-thou reformer against immorality and corruption.

•Vitter went to Washington in 1999 after winning a special election to replace Rep. Bob Livingston, who had resigned in a sex scandal when his marital indiscretions were publically aired. Vitter cultivated an image as a reformer who would rid Louisiana politics of sex scandals like the one that ended the career of his predecessor.

Today: David Vitter is currently running for re-election to the Louisiana Senate. He promises to champion old-fashioned, Southern, conservative values. His capacity for insincerity and incongruity knows no bounds.

THE END SCORE: Vitter, Ensign, Gingrich, and perhaps even Sanford, have maintained their positions and political viability among the conservative base.

Hypocrisy in Republican politics runs rampant like an infectious plague. From the more benign transgression of trading in campaign promises of religious conservatism and family values for hedonistic adulterous affairs, to the more repugnant offenses of Larry Craig (soliciting sex from a stranger in a public airport restroom), Mark Foley (vulgarly propositioning underage boys working as staff pages) and Ted Haggard (engaging in sex with male prostitutes while high on methamphetamines), the scandals keep coming. Some of these moral failings are merely two-faced and damaging only to their own families and others are criminal offenses that break the laws these men are elected to uphold, injuring the common good of society as a whole.

Family values as defined by adulterous, hypocritical, politicians who believe themselves above the law, need to be re-evaluated. Those who fail to live according to the mandates they would legislate for others, are in no way qualified to legally define what is moral for the rest of society. They obviously possess no religious fortitude or insight that makes them, in any way, suitable to mandate their personal religious values, familial or otherwise, for others. It is no longer acceptable to say, I flagrantly refuse to live by these principals I espouse, but that will not impede me from forcing them upon you and your family. I don’t want to live in a country where the sinners dictate the legality of the personal choices I make regarding my body, my mind and my relationships.

I refuse to live my life according to a code of values instituted by lying, cheating, hypocrites. Evidenced by their own personal actions, these politicians have no sense of true morality or integrity.

In other words… Separation of Church and State should be paramount in any elected official’s values. As for their religious beliefs and personal notions of family values, they should keep them in their family and church where they belong—and out of the office. The only values that have any place in government are secular values, such as justice, compassion, civil liberties, fairness, equality, freedom of thought, religion and speech. Those we elect to run our government should stick to policy and leave religious values and personal philosophy to individual conscience.

Sarah Palin's Slight Return

2009-07-27T23:52:00.000-07:00

Written By: Kelly Opdycke
Photo Credit: Bradblog

On Sunday former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin stepped down as governor of Alaska. I couldn’t resist one final (I hope) opportunity to remind us all why she should pick a new career.

The first question most Americans who still care about Palin are wondering is, “What is she thinking?” Well, the ever-elusive former governor has given no definitive answer, leaving the journalists and bloggers with only speculation.

And speculate they do. Of course, the obvious answer everyone suggests is that Palin left to start her bid for president in the 2012 election. I seriously, seriously hope this is true because she wont even make it to the primaries, as the percentage of voters who actually support her falls well below the majority.

Plus, the swing voters, who are important in all elections, tend to vote moderately. Palin can be called many things, but she’s no moderate. And I would like to think voters would be discouraged to support someone who can’t even finish one term in office.

Another cause of her resignation could be the numerous ethics complaints filed against her. The former governor has admitted that these complaints have taken a personal toll and have harmed her ability to govern. So far, all 18 complaints have been dismissed.
With talented speechwriters a thing of the campaign trail past, Palin delivered her final speech as governor in “real talk,” meaning she stumbled over every other word. I will never comprehend why being inarticulate qualifies you to run the country. (See Exhibit A: President George W. Bush.)

While most of Palin’s speech touched on her positive achievements as governor, the tone eventually changed. Instead of taking the high road and going out in class, she used the platform to attack her critics, and shockingly broke new ground by attacking tiny Hollywood starlets who help promote what she called an "anti-hunting, anti-2nd amendment agenda." She then went on to attack (and bait, I suspect) the press saying, “How about, in honor of the American soldier, you quit makin’ things up?”

Oh, you mean like claiming people pal around with terrorists? Didn’t think so…
So what’s next for America’s beauty queen? Well, there are talks of an unconfirmed appearance at an upcoming Republican women’s convention in the Los Angeles area, so all hopes that she will instead enjoy a nice vacation of hunting moose and rallying for husband Todd’s dog races are lost, for now.

But if I know Palin, and I think I do, she’ll figure out even more ways to use those guns of hers to shoot herself in the foot - Let’s just hope “real talk” America is smart enough to notice when it happens.

“In Other Words…”

2009-07-17T00:14:00.000-07:00

Written By: Sara Ledesma

Being a woman is tough, right? It wears on you to be judged by your outer appearance, as if your body dictates who you are as a person, thought of as inferior to a man in intelligence, strength, and overall ability. Subjected to a double standard that says you must resist sexual urges to be considered a “good woman”, all while being told being sexy is the key to attracting, and maintaining, a man’s interest. Being told having sex makes you a whore, while it makes a man a stud, it’s as natural as peeing standing up. And yes…we still make less money in the work place.
Not easy…but it’s cake walk, wrapped in a cocktail party, topped with a shopping spree, compared to the unlucky fate of living life as an Arab female in the Middle East.

The Islamic view perceives women as temptresses, capable of leading followers away from God and into evil destruction. Women are thus rivals to God and a threat to leading a holy life. As such, they must be restrained and strictly controlled so not to bring all of society into civil and moral chaos. In the Middle East, where social behavior is dictated by Islamic law…this control and subjugation of women is institutionalized through law. In most Middle Eastern countries it is legal, and expected, for the men of the family to ensure obedience of their wives and children to Islamic law.

In many Middle Eastern nations, legal rights and social behavior are grounded in Islamic law. Men have the legal, as well as moral, right to restrict travel, arrange marriage (even of very young daughters to much older men), physically abuse their wives if they are insubordinate, commit marital rape, deny food , and prohibit access to education, freedom of dress and freedom to work outside the home.

The few rights afforded women in the Middle East are often hard to exercise. In these male domineered societies a woman’s testimony is not highly regarded and seldom believed. Who protects women and girls in the Middle East? Unfortunately, too often the answer is…no one. It can be a horrific and terrifying circumstance of fate to have a uterus and live in the Arab world.
 
A few statistics to paint a portrait of the state of women’s rights (or more accurately, lack of women’s rights):

• Ritual sexual mutilation of females is still common in rural areas of Egypt, Libya, Oman and Yemen.

• In Jordan, Iraq, Libya and Omen and Yemen married women must have their husbands' written permission to travel abroad, and they may be prevented from doing so for any reason.

• In Saudi Arabia women must obtain written permission from their closest male relative to leave the country or travel on public transportation between different parts of the kingdom. When allowed to ride public transportation they must sit segregated from men, at the back of the bus (sound familiar?)

• Saudi women may not marry non-Saudis without government permission. The government rarely grants permission, locking women into this repressive social and legal system.

• 55% of Arab women are illiterate. That’s 1 in 2 women.

• It is legal in almost every Middle Eastern country to murder women and young girls to protect the family “honor.”

• In many countries women are denied the right to custody of children, inheritance, decision making in the family and divorce.

• Polygamy and forced marriage of girls as young as nine still practiced in areas of the Middle East.

Burning question: Have 5 years of a war and billions of dollars help “Liberate” Arab Women in the Middle East? Surely, at least in Iraq, things must be more democratic between the sexes?

In response, a few statistics:

• In Afghanistan: Women are no longer allowed to be legally beaten by their husbands. Instead, it is now legal for men to starve their wives if they disobey. (Is this progress?)

• In 2005, after a three-decade-long struggle, Kuwaiti women finally won the right to vote.

• In the United Arab Emirates, while still very restricted in terms of political rights and civil liberties, the country has introduced a very limited voting process where women, for the very first time, were allowed to vote for elected bodies in the Federal National Council.

• In Saudi Arabia the ban on women checking into a hotel or renting an apartment has been lifted, although they still need written permission to get on a plane or leave the country. They are still denied the right to drive a car or leave the house un-covered.

• Women’s access to education has been an area in which many Middle Eastern nations have made progress. Unfortunately, this has been enjoyed mostly by non-rural, upper class and royal women.

I have to wonder how we can declare that we "liberated" Iraq from tyranny, and are in the process of liberating Afghanistan from oppressive religious fundamentalism, when half of the population of both countries still lack basic human rights. Women must be obedient to the men in their families and to their husbands. They are trapped in an infantile state where they are told what to wear, where they are allowed to go, and with whom. They are told who they will marry and what will be done to their bodies. The luckiest of them live in countries where they can vote, work and go to school, yet too many Arab women are denied even these “privileges.”

Their testimony is weighed less than a man’s in court, yet they face stricter penalties when convicted for the same crime as a man. Women have few laws to protect their physical well being, or their children, and even less access to recourse when the meager rights they have are violated.

The Koran forces women to be compliant to their husbands. Most often, a husband is judge, jury and executor when he decides his wife or daughter disobeys him. In many Middle Eastern nations, sentences for a transgression against his honor include: stoning, beating, and even death.

As for me, next time I’m cursing traffic— I’m going to relax and be thankful I have the right to drive. When I get frustrated trying on swimwear because my stomach isn’t as flat as I’d like it to be, I’m going to breathe a sigh of relief that I’m not being forced to wear a Burqua in boiling summer temperatures. As soon as start to feel annoyed at having to answer a ton of emails, I’ll release a joyful “Alleluia” I have the ability to read and write. When I’m aggravated at the arrival of yet another school loan payment, I’m going to sing out in praise how lucky I am having had the opportunity to pursue a college education.

In other words…In order to install genuine Democracy in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries in the Middle East, it is imperative that women are first granted basic human rights. Democracy, after all, necessitates equality in order to function. There is no liberation in a country where half the population is not free, no Democracy in a country where half the population has no voice and no rights.

G8 Summit

2009-07-14T13:43:00.000-07:00

Written By: Kelly KO

Last week L’Aguila, Italy welcomed world leaders for the Group of 8 summit. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi handpicked this city out of solidarity to the victims of a 6.3 earthquake in April. Despite the fact that 25,000 residents now live in tent cities, the devastated city hurried to accommodate the many leaders and journalists, even rushing a new airport into completion.

On that positive note, the summit began. Throughout the 3-day summit, the G8 leaders – from the United States, Great Britain, Italy, France, Germany, Russia, Japan and Canada – focused on how they could save the world from issues like the global recession, climate change and poverty.
Eventually, the G5, which includes Mexico, South Africa, Brazil, China and India, plus Egypt (for the math whiz G8 + G5 + G1 = G14) were allowed into the discussion. According to the International Monetary Fund, China, India and Brazil are all ranked in the top ten largest economies in the world, so the big question is why wasn’t it the G14 (or G20 or G195) instead of the G8?

The G8 summit is just another way for rich countries like the US and Great Britain to look as if they can take care of everyone. Unfortunately there are 195 countries in the world and while not all countries will agree on the same things, more countries should be involved in deciding what should happen next in this hard economic climate.

Many countries resistant to influence of international governmental organizations (IGOs) like the United Nations because of their Western-centric nature will be no less hesitant to cooperate with the G8 because of the same problem.

Okay, we’ll ignore this and make believe that all the countries get along and everything is perfect and whatever the G8 says goes. Not likely, but let’s pretend and see where it gets us.
Judging by past actions, not very far. In a July 7 Global Post article, Michael Goldfarb tells of a few examples where the G8’s agreements were all talk, no action.

In 2005, then-Prime Minister Tony Blair convinced many of the richest nations to give to some of the poorest. Or so he thought. According to Goldfarb’s article many countries have failed to live up to their pledges.

Another example was in April of this year when members of the G20 agreed to more regulation on banks and caps on executive compensation. So far, the United States and Great Britain have both failed to do much in regards to the promises they made.

The G6 was originally set up in response to the oil crisis of 1973 and the recession that followed. Since 1975 they have been meeting to solve the world’s problems one summit at a time, but these problems are too big to be solved by eight leaders who only like to talk. One hundred eighty-six more would like to be heard.

READ MORE: L.A. Times - Reuters - Global Post

Clean Energy? How The Cap And Trade Act Swindled Americans

2009-07-02T02:13:00.000-07:00

Written By: Kelly K.O.

On June 26, the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. Better known as the cap and trade act, it is setup to limit this country’s affects on global warming by, you guessed it, capping and trading the amount of greenhouse gas emissions released into the atmosphere.

Basically, a company will have a certain amount of emissions that they can legally release with no penalty. After reaching that limit, the company is then in the penalty and must either gain more permits through other companies who have extra or offset their emissions through things like planting trees.

While the 1500+-page (including a 300-page amendment added the night before!?!) has much more to it than can be covered in this piece, one controversial point is the idea that an increase in energy costs will force companies to develop or use alternative forms of energy, including wind and solar power. Proponents of the bill believe this will create new ‘green’ jobs for the country.

Opponents of the bill claim that companies will simply move to other countries where the cap and trade bill will no longer affect them, costing the US millions of jobs. Other opponents, mainly Republicans, also claim an increase in energy costs would directly hurt consumers, but the EPA and nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office believe the cost would be less than $200 to each household per year.

During a recession it’s hard to convince Americans how necessary this relatively small amount of extra cash, but they must understand that despite everyone’s current struggles the world will not be alright if those of us who can sacrifice refuse to do so. If you can afford it, don’t support the overseas companies who ignore their environmental effects.

And some are still arguing on whether global warming actually exists. Based on almost all scientific evidence this argument is ridiculous, but it must be addressed.

While we can debate all day on whether global warming is fact or fiction, the important point is that this bill was not created to deal only with this issue. It’s also about the massive amount of natural resources in use. At some point these resources will not be as readily available as they are now. It’s better to focus on other forms of energy now than to wait until there is no other choice.

Republicans are not the only ones speaking out against the bill. Former Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich believes the bill needs to be tougher on coal-burning companies. He also doesn’t think the goal to reduce emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 80% below 2005 levels by 2050 goes far enough.

“Apparently, the planet is not melting; it is just getting better for polluters,” he said in a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives.

President Barack Obama has acknowledged to the New York Times that many environmental groups would not be happy with the so-called modest bill, but he told them it is an “extraordinary first step.”

Unfortunately, the bill still must get through the Senate where it could be hacked until barely recognizable, probably to appease conservatives, not left-wingers like Kucinich.

In Other Words…A No-Nonsense Translation of Current Events

2009-07-02T02:04:00.000-07:00

Written By: Sara Ledesma

Don’t ask, Don’t tell prohibits openly gay soldiers to serve in the military. Finally, we have a president who declares himself a “fierce advocate” in the fight to end this discriminatory ban. Almost seems like a no-brainer that gay military personnel deserve to share in the freedom for which they make the ultimate sacrifice…their very lives. But alas, such equality is denied these defenders of the land of the free, home of the brave.

The Pentagon claims gay people must lie about their sexual orientation because morale is at risk. If this argument sounds vaguely familiar…that’s because this is not the first time it’s been used to defend bigoted military policy. Military management used the same argument to oppose racial integration of the military. Desegregation, it was said, would put national security at risk by destroying the military. It took a rebellious executive order by President Truman to integrate the military. If history is any lesson, racial integration of the military worked out just peachy.

I have to wonder if being a person who loves another person of the same sex is as much a threat to the morale of our troops as, say, stop loss. Stop loss is the frightening practice of forcing soldiers who have finished their tour of duty back to the battlefield for additional tours. The military will re-enlist troops even after they are declared unstable by mental health professionals. They are shipped out to the battlefield suffering from PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) or emotional and psychological exhaustion.

Stop loss increases the chances soldiers will develop debilitating mental and emotional problems, make dangerous mistakes in battle that put them and their fellow soldiers at risk, develop substance abuse problems and face marriage and family problems back home. I have a nagging feeling this has to be more damaging to a soldier’s state of mind than anguishing over who their bunkmate is choosing to date, on his or her own time, off the battlefield. Gay men and women in the military who are volunteering to return to battle are being fired, meanwhile soldiers in precarious health are being forcibly shipped back to the battlefield; instead of home to heal and receive proper medical attention.

Other issues I would presume are not conducive to a soldier’s peace of mind: shoddy electrical work conducted by contractors resulting in negligent deaths of our brave military personnel, lack of proper equipment, lack of translators and other skilled personnel (due in part to the firing of gay soldiers with specialized skills), and sexual harassment of women in the service.

A perfect example: Lt. Dan Choi, distinguished grad of West Point, an Iraqi vet eager to return to battle voluntarily, fluent in Arabic (much needed right now!), decorated with accommodations for bravery in battle…recently fired because he felt lying about his identity went against all the values instilled in him at West Point and in the Army. Telling the truth apparently not the type of courage rewarded in the armed services. With real dangers posing daily threats to our military, it seems ridiculous that refusing to admit you are a gay man or woman is what the military finds threatening to the lives and health of our soldiers.

In other words… our government is telling skilled, desperately needed, decorated soldiers that they have the privilege to leave their families and put their lives at risk for our freedom here at home, as long as they don’t expect to partake in that freedom for themselves.