Ricky Gervais and W.C. Fields - Connections Deeper Than Dentistry

The ability to create comedy is one of humanity's signature triumphs. And I am grateful that mankind also invented motion pictures (with and without sound) to capture humor and allow generations (both current and future) to enjoy it.

That said, let's jump way ahead to a particular pair of comedy movie stars - past and present.

From the past, one of my all time favorite comedians is W.C. Fields. Several books have been written about him and his uniquely caustic comic style, but there is no substitute for simply watching the man himself in action. So you should do so at your earliest opportunity!

Fields' characters tend to fall into distinct categories - including the flamboyant liar/braggart with a fondness for drink that has become his immortal stereotype (see "My Little Chickadee", "You Can't Cheat An Honest Man"). My fave "type" is the hen-pecked husband/father/son-in-law who is trying to survive a wickedly, often hilariously complex world (see "The Man On The Flying Trapeze", "It's A Gift", "You're Telling Me").

Another of Fields' types is the near-total misanthrope with a pulverizingly hilarious wit. This character roundly disdains most people, issuing devastating verbal asides muttered when the target is just out of earshot. And that's where Ricky Gervais steps in. The creator of "The Office" is in fine form in the extremely funny film "Ghost Town," playing a self-absorbed character immensely sure of his superiority even as his actions reveal the comic absurdity - and the emptiness - of that stance.

In "Ghost Town", Gervais plays a New York City dentist whose near-death experience enables him to see ghosts - and the spirits of Manhattan have a lot of unfinished issues that only a human partner can help them with. But their unwilling accomplice has built a life around denying other living people exist, let alone dead ones. How the dentist must connect with the undead to forge a path to a new life is the basic story, and offers Gervais playing the contemporary equivalent of a Fields film.

So how is Gervais' dentist - Bertram Pincus, a worthy nom de plume on par with Fields characters like J. Pinkerton Snoopington and Egbert Souse - channeling W.C.? It's in the way he casually tosses hilarious insults and routinely looks to gain the upper hand. Pincus will semi-gleefully cut in line to steal a taxi ride, and vacuously apologize while pushing the "close doors" button on the elevator while a package-laden woman runs to catch a lift, both bits recalling various Fields adventures in one-on-one exploitation. Gervais' style is more deadpan than W.C., but his gruff, comically acidic exterior hides a man seeking humanity (though on his own terms) in a fashion that is pure Fields. And both comics play characters that continue to fight their largely imaginary wars even as they ruefully acknowledge that defeat could be just around the corner.

Ultimately, it's seeing another average, slightly rounded, pasty-faced man with a withering wit in a dentist's smock that provides the most direct Gervais-Fields link. Fields made perhaps the greatest film on dentistry:"The Dentist" sharply skewers family issues, modern technology, golf and sex in a snappy twenty minutes. Seeing Gervais essay a Fieldsian comic style while wearing his professional uniform in many scenes outside the office is simultaneously reminiscent and pretty funny on its own ("I'm a dentist, I just came from work...this is how we do it, baby" he explains at one point).

Enough chatter. If you haven't seen "Ghost Town" with Ricky Gervais, go and rent it. And if you have not seen W.C. Fields, you've got a whole lot of catching up to do. Fortunately, in both cases, you'll have a great time.

C.I.A. Venture Capital, The Internet And You

In-Q-Tel's multiple investments spread across a wide range of technology companies.

Click below for the secret message!

I have a myspace page for music, a couple of photo site accounts and this blog, so my internet privacy is already hopelessly compromised. I made these choices knowing big-brother style monitoring - either for commercial/marketing gain or something more devious - was going on. But I’ve refrained from joining Facebook or any other social networking sites.

Aside from being basically anti-social, it's knowing that Congress - via the Patriot Act - gave up so many citizen privacy protections that tells me to keep a low profile. That doesn't seem to bother millions of Americans, though. That's why this recent press release was an attention-grabber.

Visible Technologies - a “social media monitoring” company - has joined up with In-Q-Tel to “listen” to consumers across a broad range of internet social networks. From the attached press release, highlights are mine:

“In-Q-Tel is the not-for-profit, strategic investment firm that works to identify, adapt, and deliver innovative technology solutions to support the mission of the U.S. Intelligence Community. Launched by the CIA in 1999 as a private, independent organization, In-Q-Tel’s mission is to identify and partner with companies developing cutting-edge technologies that serve the national security interests of the United States.”
http://es-es.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=161002463047&comments&ref=mf

Our tax dollars at work – spying on us! If you've got a good surveillance idea, the C.I.A.'s In-Q-Tel has got the start-up dough! I know Facebook has a pretty wide-ranging “we can do what we want with your stuff for as long as we want, and give/sell your info to pretty much anybody - especially law enforcement” terms of service agreement – I don’t know much about any others. but all that fine print detail is just a few clicks away on the internet.

Myself, I think I’ll preserve whatever privacy I have left from the CIA’s investment firm as best I can. Although who's to say this blog entry isn't being read by deeply-hidden lurkers right now?

Here is the Visible Technologies website:
http://www.visibletechnologies.com/

Here is the In-Q-Tel website – I enjoyed the FAQ section on “Submitting A Business Plan” – hey, the CIA’s got unlimited venture capital:
http://www.iqt.org/

And two items in the “just for grins” department:

ISS: Intelligence Support Systems for Lawful Interception, Criminal Investigations and Intelligence Gathering
Check out this online security company’s conference agenda from last month. Clicking into the specific program topics is an eye-opening experience. While much of what’s being discussed here is lawful – meaning we’ve allowed the creation of laws to enable this sort of electronic monitoring – the scale is troubling. Not to mention the ongoing revolving door of lawmaking, policing, and surveillance/security equipment private enterprise that financially enriches all its participants.
http://www.issworldtraining.com/ISS_WASH/

And here's an ISS tidbit that just dropped: Sprint fielded 8 million law enforcement information requests over the last year!
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/surveillance-shocker-sprint-received-8-million-law

And the Department of Defense is staging an internet treasure hunt! Only it’s not all fun and games :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/04/darpa-balloon-challenge

Letters To Washington

A copy of a letter sent to Representative Ed Perlmutter, my congressional district representative, on 12/2/09:

Representative Perlmutter:

I urge you to help stop this madness of ever-escalating war and empire in Iraq and Afghanistan. How many more soldiers have to die before you and your Congressional colleagues begin to shut down these wars of occupation?

How many more soldier's families have to suffer the loss or injury of a loved one? How many more innocent civilians have to die in Afghanistan? How much more money has to be spent, lining the pockets of multi-million dollar private contractors as they build the infrastructure to house the US military for a long-term presence in the region?

How can a Democratic majority, elected in 2006 to both houses with a mandate to end the wars, continue to vote to expand them instead? How can our country absorb the incredible financial, physical and psychological costs that endless wars bring? How do you think we'll manage it - I'm interested in your view, since you have repeatedly voted to continue these wars.

And as soon as someone in the government can tell me how Al-Qaeda was responsible for the destruction of World Trade Center 7 on September 11, 2001 - well, then maybe the other flimsy rationales offered by the President for expanding the wars will make sense.

Stand up and be counted on the side of sanity and peace, Mr. Perlmutter. The President's twisting of words to explain this "surge" is as dumbfounding and insulting as any mangling of the language used by Mr. Bush. Do not blindly support the President because he is a Democrat.

There are resolutions before the House now to stop funding this war - H.R. 3699 from Representative Barbara Lee is one such measure and I hope you will co-sign and champion it. The House has the power to stop the killing - please use it!

If not, I'd like to know how you sleep at night, knowing you have a direct hand in meting out unnecessary death and destruction that will affect - and haunt - generations of Americans, Afghans and Iraqis.

Same Old Story: But Now It's The Nobel Peace Prize Winner Who's Expanding The Wars

I would like to think I'll be able to retire this picture someday...but someday is not today.

I'm getting really tired of writing about the wars, but they keep going on, keep getting bigger, keep getting more and more of our tax dollars to pound down a Middle Eastern sinkhole. Except for the dollars that enrich the hundreds of thousands of private contractors and energy company operators.

That's why these wars will never end - too many people making too much money at the expense of soldiers and their families lives, and citizen tax dollars fuel the enterprise.

President Obama's speech on December 1st outlined his new plan to "surge" 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan. Yes, the Nobel Peace Prize winner is fulfilling his campaign promise to expand the US military presence in Afghanistan and continue the wars. Will Congress fight back this time?

They did not fight back against the Bush Administration war machine, even though by 2006 the Congressional Democrats could have severely hindered if not outright stopped the free-flowing money spigot required for endless war. So if they wouldn't stop their Republican political opponents, does anyone think they will stop their own party's leader?

A colleague at work told me of a Thanksgiving holiday encounter with a military officer relative just returned from a lengthy tour of duty in Iraq. "He says it's a joke over there" was the quote, and he recounted several examples related to him of excessive resource waste, luxury building materials, and unrestricted budgets available for the officer's duties. I urged him to watch Robert Greenwald's movie "Iraq For Sale" to get even more details. (http://iraqforsale.org/)

I think most people have the idea things in Iraq and Afghanistan are much different than they are portrayed in the American media. More folks need to understand that, and start hounding their congressional representatives to stop this fiscal/military madness. It's the only way this particular folly of empire can be halted.

Some other notable reactions:

From Cindy Sheehan, pointedly dead-on in her analysis, as usual - "You Get What You Vote For": http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24089.htm

Blogger Arthur Silber expertly analyzes between the lines of the President's speech, pointing out that Obama has effectively gutted the anti-war movement, leaving an open field to continue the Bush Adminstration's war machine:

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2009/12/deadly-liar-and-manipulator.html

And Representative Dennis Kucinich uses just a few words to skewer the President's war plan - "What part of 'get out' do we not understand?"
http://www.kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=157597

Free "Continental" Breakfast

So I'm checking out various web sites to procure a hotel room in Middle America. I've done this dozens of times over the years. A pretty standard added-value incentive at these establishments is a free continental breakfast.

This time I thought to ask the question: Which continent?

I understand that the term originated in the U.K. and referred to a menu that might be found on the "continent", meaning Europe.

But there are other continents, right? Am I getting an Australian breakfast, or an African one? Asia or South America? Lots of different cultures, with wildly varying menus, reside on these large islands jutting out of our ocean-dominated planet.

Maybe American hotel chains should experiment with breakfast and tie it in with other current corporate crazes like "outsourcing" jobs to other countries and the "global market." How about if a Holiday Inn in Topeka, Kansas served an Egyptian-flavored "continental" breakfast? Surprised travelers would enter that cozy little counter top kitchen/dining room and take in the pleasant aroma of slow-cooked fava beans, accented with lemons, olive oil and garlic. Just the thing to get you St. Louis by lunch!

Or how about a Ramada Inn in Boise, Idaho surprising guests with a top-of-the-morning meal from Ecuador: strong black coffee, hard cheese and fried plantains. Elvis Presley had a weak spot for deep fried anything, so he'd be happy.

Anyway, just wondering...

Obama Says "More Transparency" - While Gates Says "Except When It Comes To Torture Evidence"

You cannot make this stuff up.

On the one hand, you've got the President, traveling to foreign lands and sounding that all-American call for transparency and open government. On the other hand, you've got the President's Department of Defense fighting for just the opposite - less visibility and blocking open government.

President Obama is visiting China and telling folks there that open communication and freedom of speech is a good thing. Meanwhile, back home in Washington, D.C., his administration is filing Supreme Court motions to block the publication of photos sought under the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA).

President Obama's remarks at a "town hall" meeting in China, according to an Associated Press report, included a statement that said unfettered access to information "should be available to all people."

(The article also reports the President as saying "We do not seek to impose any system of government on any other nation." I'm wondering how the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan are reacting to that statement?)http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD9C0GJ400

Unfortunately, unfettered access to information is just what the Defense Department does not want. Thanks to a compliant Congress and President Obama's signature - which passed a law circumventing the FOIA for just this circumstance - Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has barred the release of 21 photos showing American soldiers torturing and humiliating Iraqi detainees.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/15/scotus.detainee.photos/index.html

According to press reports, the Obama administration filed a brief with the Supreme Court late Friday supporting Gates' blocking the release of the photos. The American Civil Liberties Union is seeking publication of the photos, and promises to keep working towards that end.

President Obama had initially indicated he would not stop the release of the photos, many taken at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison by soldiers in charge of prisoners. But he later reversed course and supported suppression of the documents.

So Mr. President, which is it? Freedom of information for all citizens is good for the Chinese, but not so much for Americans? How can you urge other countries to practice transparency and open dissemination of information while simultaneously shielding documents proving evidence of government law-breaking from publication at home?

How do these guys stand up on the world stage and say this stuff with a straight face?

Read The Fine Print

An Associated Press story this morning says that President Obama is dissatisfied with the options given him for prosecuting the war in Afghanistan and wants changes. But there's some fine print that didn't make the headlines.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20091109/US.US.Afghanistan/

As usual, "the officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss administration deliberations."

Unfortunately, these same officials were also the source of these remarks (the highlights are mine):

"Obama is still expected to send in more troops to bolster a deteriorating war effort."

"The sense that he was being rushed and railroaded has stiffened Obama's resolve to seek information and options...though a substantial troop increase is still likely."

"The White House says Obama has not made a final (plan) choice...(but) he appears near to approving a slightly smaller increase than (General) McChrystal wants at the outset."

Make no mistake, it's a good thing to talk about dissatisfaction with the Afghan War, and it's good to have that story coming out of the White House. It would really be something to draw down troops and leave. That is obviously not happening. Read the fine print.

President Obama is fulfilling his campaign promises to expand the war in Afghanistan. Even as unnamed administration sources seek to paint a different picture.

Yes, the president is saying, we'll send more troops. But I will complain grumpily while signing the authorization. And yes, I'm in charge.

And finally, this statement:

"He remains close to announcing his revamped war strategy - troops are just one component..."

The troops are also the component that is on the ground, shooting and returning fire, killing and dying. How many more Afghans and Americans will die as the USA "revamps" its destructive strategy? That fine print is deadly.

Talk is cheap. Scarring and ending thousands of lives carry the highest costs imaginable.

Kucinich Votes "No" On Health Care Reform

Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is the sponsor of HR 676, the Single-Payer health care reform measure that was roundly ignored or denigrated by the mainstream media and corporate lobbyists.

Kucinich is one of the Democrats who voted against the recently passed House health care reform bill (H.R. 3962), and not because of the silly, ignorant reasons given by many legislators who also voted "no" - rationales like "government takeover", "socialism", "bureaucrats making decisions instead of individuals", etc. He voted "no" because H.R. 3962 does little to help citizens while further entrenching and enriching the insurance companies who want to continue the uniquely American system of health-care-for-profit.

Essential reading: here's Mr. Kucinich's reasons for voting against this "reform."

http://www.kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153995

And while you're there, take in Mr. Kucinich's excellent short article pondering the question "Why do we have finite resources for health care but unlimited money for war?" As he says in the article: "...a Democratic version of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is no more acceptable than a Republican version of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

http://www.kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153461

ACTA - More Control Over The Internet?

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is an international treaty proposing global regulations on internet content, with a specific emphasis on new enforcement mechanisms pertaining to copyrighted materials. This has been a little under the radar for many (including myself), but there are lots of documents available on the web with info.

This is a news flash coming out of the latest round of apparently closed-door negotiations taking place in Seoul, South Korea this week. Was it just the opening salvo when music conglomerates started suing moms and college students for downloading? According to this article from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, it’s the punitive model of “three strikes and you’re out” for copyright infringement - to be enforced by internet providers:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/11/leaked-acta-internet-provisions-three-strikes-and

EFF filed suit against the government, asking for release of papers/documents pertaining to US participation in ACTA – the Obama Administration cited “national security” concerns as the reason to deny public distribution, the judge ruled in the government’s favor and the lawsuit died:
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/06/17

This May 2008 article from Intellectual Property Watch details some of the criticism of ACTA provisions from other countries:
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2008/05/30/embattled-acta-negotiations-next-week-in-geneva-us-sees-signing-this-year/

From the Wiki article on ACTA: “Critics argue ACTA is part of a broader strategy of venue shopping and policy laundering employed by the trade representatives of the US, EC, Japan, and other supporters of rigid intellectual property enforcement. This strategy entails negotiating for terms in international treaties that might prove too politically unpopular to pass in national assemblies.”

"National security" and seeking out ways to circumvent legislators - what a world. I cannot predict how the U.S. Senate might vote on an ACTA treaty as outlined today. But given that august body's history on bowing down to corporate money, rest assured that it will take a concerted public effort to make sure any fairness in analysis is achieved.

President Obama: Trying To Make The Future Safe For More Guys Like This! Guys Who Can't Remember Things!

(Insert name of your favorite villain/evil-doer/boogeyman here)

While on the campaign trail, Senator Obama spoke eloquently and vigorously about the Bush Administration's use of dubious legal standards - including a wide-ranging "state secrets" blanket - to shield its activities from the press and public.

Unfortunately, President Obama's Department Of Justice has picked up defending these constitutional violations right where the Bush Administration left off. Various legal cases seeking to eliminate the veils of secrecy are being battled in court, and the current DOJ keeps fighting to maintain the Bush-era stances. You can read Glen Greenwald's cogent summation of the current situation here:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/11/01/state_secrets/index.html

Okay, so using Dick Cheney's photo is a cheap way to sell this post - after all, Dick, W and their pals were the enemy many could agree on and hiss continually without fear.

Fortunately, verification that Cheney is indeed a bad guy keeps coming out. Apparently the memory portion of his brain contains holes like swiss cheese - he cannot remember things. Important things, like who was in a position to manipulate the press with fake Iraqi WMD claims, or who might have known the identity of a certain undercover CIA agent.

But now that a previously secret FBI interview summation has been made public - via court order - we can see that Mr. Cheney's memory lapses coincide remarkably with grand jury testimony from his chief of staff, "Scooter" Libby. Libby verifies orders from his boss to divulge classified intelligence documents to a New York Times reporter; the then-Vice President cannot recollect any such discussion. Libby, under oath, recalls the time when Cheney told him the identity of a CIA agent who happened to be married to a man the VP characterized as "an aggravation"; Dick, pausing for a moment, tapping his fingers on a desk while his eyes scan the ceiling - sorry, he has no recollection. Okay, I used a little dramatic license there, but it's easy to imagine!

There's a lot more, and you can read it here: http://www.truthout.org/1031099.

Make sure and check out a scan of the actual FBI document, where you can see the numerous variations of "I cannot recall":
http://www.citizensforethics.org/files/20091030%20-%20Cheney%20302%20(redacted).pdf.

It's a chilling read, understanding that this is but one episode in the lawless, power-hungry, and ultimately bloody actions of the Bush Administration.

These are the guys that the Obama Department of Justice is shielding in court today. It is the "legal" interpretations and precedents that these guys set in motion that the Obama Department of Justice is fighting to preserve.

Wonder why?

State Department Adventures In The War Zone

The State Department has been making headlines lately in the Middle East, and not in a good way for the current caretakers of the American Empire.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - the Empire's top diplomat - spent three days in Pakistan, much of it with Pakistani television, radio and other journalists. U.S. news media readers/talkers should take note: tough questions were asked about the ongoing war on "terror." Questions about drone bombers, American interference in Pakistani government, and "daily 9/11s". Questions you are almost guaranteed to never hear from American journalists.

Check out these articles about her trip, and try to imagine any network or cable news personality in this country with the gumption to ask questions similar to those posed by Pakistani reporters:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8784194

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/world/asia/31clinton.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=pakistan%20hillary%20clinton%20trip&st=cse

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/10/31/Clinton-finds-Pakistani-mistrust-and-anger/UPI-59211257023194/

One of Secretary Clinton's colleagues has quit his job in Afghanistan as a protest against the Empire's actions in that country. Matthew Hoh - a former Marine captain who served in Iraq before joining the State Department - is a principled man. Thanks go out to him for making a statement, with this action, in favor of common sense and decency.

Mr. Hoh says he cannot understand America's purposes in Afghanistan. If a State Department operative, actively working on the ground in the country, cannot articulate the mission...my guess is it's not because he's stupid. It's because his bosses, somewhere up the line, count on him to do his job and not ask questions. We need more people like Matthew Hoh - here's the story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603394.html?hpid=topnews

Still Missing

Everett Ruess walking in the Sierras

If you read Jon Krakauer's excellent book "Into The Wild", you learned of an earlier version of quixotic Chris McCandless. Poet, artist and adventurer Everett Ruess, age twenty, disappeared into the wilds of the Utah wilderness in 1934. Like McCandless, the lure of places untouched by men proved seductive to Ruess, whose remains have never been found.

And that remains the case today, as a previous claim that the wanderer's body had been discovered - complete with a tale of murder - has now been disputed and most likely proven incorrect. A second analysis of the recovered bones cannot replicate the results of earlier forensic identity testing. You can read about it here: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_13613247

I have enjoyed many days camping and wandering the winding trails of the Rocky Mountains - never enough days, it seems. The attraction that ultimately completely enchanted McCandless and Ruess is familiar to me, and probably to most folks who spend any extended time alone in nature.

As a species, we've spent tens of thousands of years of our history living in partnership with our planet; it's only relatively recently that we've turned towards mastering the globe's resources, relentlessly draining them as we mindlessly multiply. When we walk in nature, we are reminded of our place - it's something we should all do more often.

In any case, the disappearance of Everett Ruess remains a mystery. That's the best place to stop the story. And fitting for a young man who routinely plunged off the proscribed path on an outward-bound solo journey to discover an inner light.

To learn more about Ruess and see his art:
http://everettruess.net/#

Sheehan On The Nobel Peace Prize Winner

Cindy Sheehan offers her thoughts on the winner of this year's Nobel Peace Prize. Check it out here:http://www.opednews.com/articles/-Visions-from-Stckholm-Sw-by-Cindy-Sheehan-091010-460.html

Speaking out is something Sheehan has done consistently for years now. She's been derided by many on both the left and the right at various times, but I urge you to go hear her talk if she comes to your town. Her willingness to stand up for what she believes in and speak truth to power is inspiring.

Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize - For Giving Hope

2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner - can we get an interview with some people on the streets in Afghanistan and Iraq?

I thought I had time-slipped somehow back to April 1, or maybe a it's really a headline from the reknowned satirical paper The Onion: "Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize." But here's the official statement from the Nobel organization:
http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/home/announce-2009/

Quoting from the statment: "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

Obama has been given a major "peace" award for giving hope and his alleged diplomatic philosophy. Somewhere, George Orwell is smiling - a Norweigian committee's view of "peace" looks like an Afghan man's bombed-out home filled with dead relatives.

Memo to the Nobel Peace Prize committee:

1) The largest defense/war budget in American history was requested by the Obama Administration for fiscal 2009.

2) In June of this year, an additional $106 billion "supplemental" funding bill for the ongoing Iraq/Afghan occupation was passed by Congress at the Administration's request.

3) Debate is underway on adding more troops to the Afghanistan debacle - on top of the 21,000 additional troops that the Obama Administration has deployed this year.

This is hope? This reflects the values and attitudes shared by the majority of the people of the world? These are the actions of a man working towards a better future?

The Nobel site extols the President's "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Really? Can you give me the details, I've forgotten - it's been a long nine months in office. Just who have we had these efforts with? Honduras? Iran?

"The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons." There's been some work, some actual reductions? So far, there has been some talk with the Russians and agreements to talk further. No actions.

Past Peace Prizes have gone to folks with questionable credentials (Henry Kissinger) before. But this one is being awarded before any concrete steps towards peace have even been taken - so far the "peace" effort is all campaign promises, all talk and no actions. In fact, Obama's military moves since taking office fly in the face of his talk.

Did the Nobel Peace committee buy "hope and change" election promises? It's okay if they did. But it's another thing altogether to sell them to the rest of the planet as some sort of "peace" philosophy worthy of international recognition. George Orwell would be proud.

Let's Take A Walk In The Woods

Every once in a while, it pays to get out of town and take a walk in the woods. Good for the body...good for the soul.


For more shots of the walk, go here: http://outdoors.webshots.com/album/575030161xdzCGL

"Only The Super Rich Can Save Us" - An Evening With Ralph Nader

Ralph Nader at the Tattered Cover Book Store, Denver, CO 10-1-09

Ralph Nader appeared at the Tattered Cover in Denver on Thursday, October 1. A standing-room only audience of about 150 were treated to a more relaxed (compared to his campaign style) but no less energetic citizen activist. Utilizing his particularly pointed style of dry humor, Nader mixed comic stories with serious analysis of the contemporary American civic scene.

He is on the road talking about his first fictional book, "Only The Super-Rich Can Save Us!" Most critics are calling the work a 21st-century "utopian" novel, in that it proposes seemingly far-fetched progressive solutions to contemporary issues.

In "Super-Rich," Nader imagines a coalition of billionaires and multi-millionaires who decide to move past philanthropy to power-shifting: taking up progressive causes that benefit all citizens. Using their wealth, the group operates in secret and funds various types of nationwide social activism, launches a new political party, and takes on the corporate business giants by playing their game - spending mega-amounts of money to achieve their goals.

Nader pointed out that every social justice movement in American history - such as the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, the civil rights struggles - began as an idea. He hopes his fictional "idea" will start citizens thinking. "And," he added, "you'll never be afraid to ask a rich person for money again."

Nader began with some short remarks about the book. Then he moved into a lengthy question-and-answer session that touched on many topics, but mainly revolved around health care (Nader endorses SinglePayerAction.org) and the stranglehold that corporations - and embedded "corporate-think" - have on American society.

One questioner asked if Nader felt that the passage of any kind of "public option" in the current health care bills would possibly derail the single-payer, universal health care movement. Nader offered a definitive view: "The public option is dead...when the President says 'it's just a sliver' of the overall program to a shark tank like Congress...you have to read the code. What's happening now is just theater." He predicts there will be a "second round" of discussion in years to come, as the current bills do nothing to stop rising costs, both for premiums and care - and that the next wave will include calls for action from more ordinary citizens who will continue to suffer from the current system's multiple inequities.

Nader's use of real-life billionaires and multi-millionaires - Warren Buffet, Bill Cosby, Bill Gates, Yoko Ono, Ted Turner and more - as his book's socially-driven protagonists prompted questions. He mentioned that Turner ("frenetic" in Nader's estimation) and Buffet ("a man who says he and other super-rich should be taxed more") both gave him favorable mentions. Another real-life/fictional character was more "snippy - I can't say the name because I'm still dealing with the problem!" he said to spontaneous laughter.

Another asked if it was okay to promote progressive causes and make money from it, citing filmmaker Michael Moore's box-office successes. Nader said that Moore made millions from "Sicko", and asked Moore if he would donate $5 million to open a single-payer lobbying office in Washington. According to Nader, Moore declined. (Moore appeared the next day at Nader's Washington headquarters to threaten electoral opposition to congressional Democrats who don't support the "public option":http://www.singlepayeraction.org/blog/?p=1563.) Then Nader asked if anyone could guess his advance on his current book - which he revealed was "zero, nada, nothing." He said he wanted the book out quickly,without being hamstrung by publishing lawyers; taking no upfront money helped achieve that goal. He mentioned that publisher Seven Stories Press also has works by Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn in its catalogue - those names brought applause from the crowd.

One attendee castigated Nader, saying that "Super-Rich" is an insult to the history of social equality movements and flies in the face of his own activism. The idea that people need monied messiahs, rather than their own skills and fortitude, struck him as ignoble and defeatist. Nader replied that a quick check of American history would show that many social movements had wealthy backers, especially at the outset when resources and funds were most needed. With more super-rich people than ever before, Nader opined that we only need about 1% of them to take this course of action.

On the subject of activism, a question was asked about the recent "Tea-Bagger" protests. In Nader's view, there is a group of ultra-conservative, single issue citizens - gun control, abortion rights, tax reform, closet racists - who need little excuse to gather and march. "You just have to send the bus, and they will show up," he said, noting that while the overall theme of the well-organized event was government spending, a quick survey of signs in the crowd showed that many arrived supporting their favorite single issue. "I'm glad they got out there - anything to get people into the streets and talking is good" he said.

Nader wrapped up saying that he had to leave to tape a media appearance for an Allen Colmes show. He noted that Fox News is about the only major media outlet that will have him on regularly - even though many of them are "right wing yahoos." "Fox thrives on conflict. MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS - they don't want conflict."

Do not miss hearing Ralph Nader speak if he comes to your town. His insights, ideas and actions have improved America - listening to him is definitely worth your time.

USA Is Number One

The United States leads the planet in two arenas.

Coincidence?

17th Annual Buster Keaton Celebration

Buster Keaton is an American comic genius.

His improbable show-biz life - born to wandering sub-vaudeville performing parents, rising to the top ranks of silent film comedy, a precipitous fall due to alcohol, bad business decisions and very human failings, and finally, a semi-successful comeback in early television - is the stuff of entertainment legend.

His classic films are almost too numerous to mention (feature films "The General", "Our Hospitality", "College", "The Cameraman" come to mind, plus such great shorts as "One Week"), and are widely available.

Iola, Kansas is a few miles away from the tiny village where Keaton was born while his parents were on a never-ending vaudeville tour. For the seventeenth consecutive year, The Buster Keaton Celebration will take place in this small southeastern Kansas town. Each festival spotlights a specific aspect of Buster's life. The 2009 edition will explore his World War I enlistment.

We had the great fortune to attend this event a couple of years ago - it was a hoot, with intriguing speakers, great films and a cool small-town atmosphere. Check out the Keaton Festival website here: http://www.busterkeatoncelebration.org/

For America, War Is Real Good Business

"Because the United States does not look like a militarized country, it's hard for Americans to grasp that Washington is a war capital, that the United States is a war state, that it garrisons much of the planet, and that the norm for us is to be at war somewhere at any moment."

"What does it mean when the most military-obsessed administration in our history (Bush II), which, year after year, submitted ever more bloated Pentagon budgets to Congress, is succeeded by one headed by a president who ran, at least partially, on an antiwar platform, and who has now submitted an even larger Pentagon budget?"

"If...weaponry is being endlessly developed for our safety and security, and that of our children and grandchildren, why is it that one of our most successful businesses involves the sale of the same weaponry to other countries? The U.S., with $37.8 billion in arms sales (up $12.4 billion from 2007), controlled 68.4% of the global arms market in 2008."

TomDispatch.com is a valuable web site, calling itself the "antidote to the mainstream media." Tom Englehardt's excellent article, "Is America Hooked On War?" is a question for which any clear-thinking citizen already knows the answer.

"Defense" spending makes up more than half of the annual federal budget every year, and weapons industries continue to make up a major segment of our economy. Yet this wholly anti-Christian and anti-humanity government program is never questioned by the media, our elected representatives, or by most citizens of the nation.

Indeed, if the American government's addictive attachment to weapons and death is ever questioned, a likely answer will have something to do with the treasonous act of second-guessing the defense of the nation. Defending the USA against...whom, exactly? And, as Mr. Englehardt points out, if we as a nation are so afraid of other countries, why do we sell more weapons to other countries than anyone on the planet?

Essential reading, sobering statistics, and a subject that anyone who professes Christian/humanitarian ideals must ponder. Thanks, Tom.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175115

"Approaches...Differ Among Health Care Plans" - Or At Least The Ones We Choose To Write About

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13378914?source=rssfeeddigest

Click the link to read an Associated Press story puporting to explain the latest health care reform proposals spinning around in Congress.

What will you not read about in this widely published article? There is not a single word about either House Resolution 676 that proposes a single-payer system, or Senate Bill 703, the American Health Security Act of 2009 that also proposes a universal health care system. These are among the "several bills" mentioned in the article, but no details.

How will citizens be able to contrast and compare the various "approaches" to health care reform if all the measures before Congress are not analyzed in the media? The article calls one segment "the House Democratic bill" - which must be news to Democratic House Representative Dennis Kucinich, the author of H.R. 676.

As usual, be wary of what you read in print media and see and hear on television - these days, what's not being discussed is often the option that holds the most value for the public.

Letters To Washington

The latest report on letters I send to my Senators, both elected (Mark Udall) and appointed (Michael Bennet), and House Representative (Ed Perlmutter) in Washington - this time with some replies!

On 9/11/09 I sent letters asking where each man stands on establishing a new government commission to re-investigate the World Trade Center and Pentagon explosions in 2001. I noted that the original 9/11 Commission was hampered by a lack of funds, restricted in its mission by the Congress and White House, and finally issued a report that has been criticized widely for its omissions and interpretations. So far I have received one reply, from Rep. Perlmutter:

September 17, 2009
Dear Kevin,

This week we remember the fateful events of September 11, 2001. Eight years later we continue to remember the 3,000 lives lost and our thoughts go to their families. We also honor the brave first responders who showed so much courage that day.

As a Member of Congress, one of my most important goals is to provide first responders with every resource they need. I recently announced the Commerce City Police Department will be able to hire or retain four new police officers as part of a nationwide $1 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grant. Commerce City will receive $872,612.00, and the state of Colorado will receive more than $5 million total to bolster law enforcement personnel.

On March 16th, 2009, I introduced the Firefighter's Fatality Reduction Act in the House of Representatives. This legislation will create a study to look at fire departments across the country and determine their compliance with established safety standards and to propose ways to boost compliance to protect our communities. Each year our nation loses approximately 100 firefighters in the line of duty. We need to provide fire departments across the country with the tools they need to prevent injury and the loss of life in the line of duty.

First responders keep our families and communities safe, and it is important for Congress to pass legislation to promote their optimal health and safety. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in Congress and President Obama to ensure the men and women who protect our communities are safe and have adequate resources to do their job.

Sincerely,

Ed Perlmutter - Member of Congress

Every letter I've ever gotten back from Rep. Perlmutter is like this one - never answers the question, never addresses the topic I've raised directly. Instead, his staff searches for any legislative action that is most closely related to my letter and reports back on how the congressman voted. It's that kind of specific give-and-take dialogue that gives me confidence that my elected representative is truly listening.

On that same day, I sent all three this letter concerning President Obama's health care speech. This is the version I sent to Ed Perlmutter, which references his "telephone town hall" conference. During the Congressional vacation, Perlmutter held a couple of these "I'm listening" sessions rather than actually facing his constituents.

Rep. Perlmutter:

President Obama's speech on 9/9 about health care reform was a severe disappointment.

The news that the government will require citizens to purchase a rapacious, inefficient product - private health care insurance - under threat of financial penalty is an unprecedented act.

What other national government on this planet would contemplate forcing its citizens to fork over money to purchase for-profit private health insurance? And offer public tax subsidies to help that cause!

Let me get this straight - folks who cannot afford health insurance will be given government taxpayer money to hand over to a for-profit company?

A vote for this absolute travesty of "reform" is a vote to approve the ultimate corporate takeover of the US government.

Taxpayers are already shelling out trillions to private weapons/support contractors for a war that the majority of the public does not want. So why does Congress - even when they promise to end the foreign occupations - continue to wage war? Because some very big companies have more influence than voters.

And now the health insurance industry wants in on that "guaranteed money" scheme via Congressional action. Talk about denying choice and rationing care! And now that the public option may go away, what's to stop these companies from continuing their mega-profit practices?

I have no faith in Congress to get this most important issue fixed. There is no evidence in the bills presented so far that health insurance costs/prices will be effectively controlled.

Every other industrialized nation on the planet has solved this problem in favor of its citizens. Congress is proposing to continue a for-profit approach to the health of the nation that benefits a few at the expense of the many.

Representative Perlmutter, providing the citizens of America is a moral issue, not a business issue. Where do you stand - with for-profit corporations or the best health option for Coloradoans?

Support Representative Kucinich's H.R. 676 - universal health care, as practiced around the globe by countries who care for their citizens.

By the way, I signed up for the 8/25 telephone town hall - what a concept, are you afraid to face your constituents in person? - but was never notified, via phone message or email, of the call-in number.

So far, I've gotten two replies. First, from Senator Bennet:

Dear Kevin: Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate hearing from you.

The input of fellow Coloradans is essential in my consideration of the wide variety of important legislation and issues that come before the Senate each year. I hope you will continue to inform me of your thoughts and concerns throughout my term as your Senator.

I will continue to work hard to best represent the priorities of Coloradans and all Americans in a thoughtful and independent manner. For more information about my priorities as a U.S. Senator and about issues of importance to Colorado and our nation, I invite you to visit my website at http://bennet.senate.gov/.

Again, thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

Michael Bennet - United States Senator

Wow, thanks to whoever on un-elected Senator Bennet's staff took thirty seconds to type my email address into the computer and send me this brief yet succinct blow-off.

I got this longer non-answer from Senator Udall:

September 15, 2009

Dear Kevin,
Thank you for contacting me regarding health insurance reform. I appreciate your taking the time to express your specific views on this important topic facing our nation.

As you know, many proposals have been put on the table for reforming our health care system to make it work for all Americans. I recognize there are many, often competing, philosophies and ideas on the best way to move forward. As your Senator, it is my job to listen closely to the various stakeholders involved in this process as well as actively seek out input from across the state to help inform my understanding of what is best for Colorado. One thing I firmly believe, however, is that the status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable.

While we move forward in this debate, there are a number of key requirements which will guide my consideration. Any health reform must: 1) allow people who like the coverage they currently have to keep it; 2) bring costs down so that all Coloradans are able to cover their families while staying within their means; 3) preserve the critical doctor-patient relationship, ensuring that decisions about treatment are made by those who know the patient the best; 4) call for insurers to provide coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions or medical history; and 5) be fiscally responsible. By ensuring that these pieces are part of reform, we can provide the stability in health care that is currently lacking for hard working Coloradans - stable costs, stable coverage, and stable quality. Cost-effective ideas to improve health like emphasizing prevention and wellness programs, early screening and diagnosis, and chronic disease management are just a few pieces of the puzzle that I think can help us get there.

Another important piece to the puzzle is ensuring that health reform expands access to care for those living in rural communities, which is why I recently introduced legislation known as the Rural Physician Pipeline Act of 2009 (S.1628). This bill is designed to improve health care in rural communities by helping medical schools establish programs to recruit and train medical students who want to practice in rural areas. The provisions in this legislation are based on a successful program at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, and there is evidence to suggest that, if similar programs are expanded, as called for in my bill, we can dramatically increase the number of rural doctors nationwide.

Additionally, health reform must include provisions aimed at helping to alleviate the financial burden placed on small business owners who struggle to provide health coverage to their employees. This is especially true for those small businesses that have seen the cost of coverage grow at such an alarming rate that they are unable to stay competitive in maintaining a talented pool of workers. Small businesses are the driving force of our economy and we must pass health insurance reform which provides them a pooled marketplace from which to purchase coverage and offers credits to make plans affordable.

Reforming our health care system will not be easy, but it is imperative. As Congress continues looking for the best ways to meet our nation's health care challenges, please know that I will always keep the best interests of Coloradans in mind. Along the way, I will certainly remember your particular thoughts and concerns.

I will continue to listen closely to what you and other Coloradans have to say about matters before Congress, the concerns of our communities, and the issues facing Colorado and the nation. My job is not about merely supporting or opposing legislation; it is also about bridging the divide that has paralyzed our nation's politics. For more information about my positions and to learn how my office can assist you, please visit my website at www.markudall.senate.gov.

From my perspective, there is so much about this missive that I take issue with that I can only reiterate what I wrote to the senators: Senator Bernie Sanders' Senate Bill 703, the American Health Security Act of 2009 is the only Senate health care reform bill worth considering. It proposes to install a universal health care apparatus for the USA. Interesting, it has no co-sponsors - wonder if Bennet and Udall have considered joining up?

• (Interestingly enough, whenever I wrote to the former Senator Wayne Allard (R), I always got a reponse in the regular mail that directly addressed my question/concern and showed me that someone in his office actually read and thought for a bit about my email. That has never happened with the current Democratic trio.)

While it is never less than an exercise in futility, I continue to write and call my representatives. I won't contribute to their campaigns, and I won't vote for them, but they are the official conduit for me to express my opinions. I urge everyone reading to do the same - often.

The New Illiteracy Takes Over

"The US government is more than willing to invest billions in wars, lead the world in arms sales and give trillions in tax cuts to the ultra rich, but barely acknowledges the need to invest in those educational and civic institutions - from schools to the arts - that enable individuals to be border crossers, capable of connecting the private and the public as part of a more vibrant understanding of politics, identity, agency and governance." - Henry A. Giroux

Truthout has published a highly recommended article by Henry Giroux - "The Spectacle Of Illiteracy and the Crisis of Democracy" - which examines American anti-intellectualism, ever-growing civic illiteracy, and how both are undermining the democratic foundations of the USA.

The American education system devalues important skills such as the ability to question and critically think through issues. The result is a "chronic...and deadly civic illiteracy" that renders individuals unable to connect personal troubles to larger societal issues; the country has "moved from a culture of questioning to a culture of shouting, and in doing so (has) restaged politics and power in both unproductive and anti-democratic ways." The current health care reform "debate" is but the latest example.

Giroux places the timeline of this disintegration - the inability to connect the personal with the public - against the rise of the corporation and militarism as major influences in American life. As he writes, "How else to explain the rage against big government, but barely a peep against the rule of big corporations, which increasingly control not only the government, but almost every vital aspect of our lives from health care to the quality of our environment?" Military/weapons industries dominate our economy and authoritarian violence and blood defines our American culture, from movies/television to video games to sports.

The lesson: teach your children...to question. Before it's too late.

http://www.truthout.org/091509A

9/11 - The Day America Changed

America changed on 9/11/01. When the World Trade Center towers - three of them - fell into a their own neat piles of rubble, also vaporized were an array of individual civil liberties and privacy protections for American citizens. And a new, openly militaristic USA stepped onto the global scene.

Yet the incident that precipitated fundamental changes in America - the destruction of three buildings and the deaths of 3,000+ - has never been fully investigated or satisfactorily explained by official government agencies. In fact, the Bush Administration stalled an investigation for over one year, and then severely proscribed what the eventual 9/11 Commission could and could not look into. Congress did not contest the restrictions. And there is no hue and cry in today's government to re-open an investigation into the events of that history-altering day.

On September 12, 2001 the American Empire went fully above ground - the largely covert actions of the past became massive, openly sanctioned missions. The highlights include:

• Illegal, ultimately unfounded invasions and ongoing military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, costing USA taxpayers trillions of dollars and the deaths of thousands of Americans, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans - many of them innocent bystanders.


• Passing American (not international) laws that give the USA the right to arrest any "terrorist" suspect anywhere on the planet at anytime, and hold them indefinitely.


• Colluding with other countries to secretly transport detainees and use "enhanced interrogation" techniques at undisclosed foreign locations.


• To accomplish all this, Defense Department budgets have increased every year since 2002.
  

At home the Empire went to work as well, instituting restrictive and authoritarian measures including:

• Creating a billion-dollar private arms/survelliance market built around the new Homeland Security Department.


• Passing laws removing the right of habeus corpus (one of the oldest individual legal guarantees).


• Passing laws allowing for nearly limitless electronic surveillance of individuals.


• Allowing government actions (via arrests, property seizures, IRS audits, etc) against anyone the Executive branch suspects may be aiding "terrorists."

And, over time, the people's representatives - the Congress, with both Republican and Democratic majorities - approved and renewed these laws.

There is an abundance of independent scientific research available that calls into doubt the conclusions reached by the 9/11 Commission and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Some books, films and web sites are listed at the end of this post - and many of the movies may be streamed or downloaded for free.

My request to all Americans: ask questions! A government report tells us one story, and scientific theory, transparent research, and independently verified lab results tell another. Which is true? Why don't we know? Why not have a new investigation? Ask your Senator and Congressional representatives how they stand on this issue.

America changed in many drastic ways on 9/11/01. Don't we owe it to those who died that day - and to a planet whose face the USA has changed based on its military actions and killing since then - to find out what really happened?

9/11 Truth.org - Top 40 Questions To Ask About 9/11: http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

9/11: Blueprint For Truth - architects and engineers independently analyze the available evidence on DVD: http://www.peaceproject.com/books/dvd176.htm

9/11: Press For Truth - a movie detailing the efforts of a group of 9/11 widows as they work to begin an official investigation at all levels of government: http://www.911pressfortruth.com/

Theologian Dr. David Ray Griffin has devoted years to rigorously examining 9/11 evidence, media coverage, and government reports - with a transparency that begs many, many questions of the official story. Notable are his books "The New Pearl Harbor," "9/11 Commission: Omissions and Distortions", and especially "Debunking 9/11 Debunking": http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252693032&sr=8-1

Griffin's newest book concerns the third building that fell on 9/11 - without being hit by an airplane: "The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why The Final Official Report on 9/11 Is Unscientific And False" http://www.amazon.com/Mysterious-Collapse-World-Trade-Center/dp/1566567866/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252693088&sr=8-1

Obamacare: Good For What Ails Health Insurance Companies (Except They Are Not Sick - In Fact, They're Feeling Much Better!)

I did not watch President Obama's speech on September 9 - although hearing a congressman shout out "you lie!" would have been fun. I've often thought the British Parliament does it best. Get the Prime Minister in the same room on a regular basis with the representatives and everyone gets down to shouting. Here there is way too much decorum when it comes to the President.

Anyway, from news accounts I've perused, Mr. Obama did the expected thing and continued his retreat from his 2003 declaration of support for true universal health care in America. He indicated then that only one thing was necessary to enable the USA to join the rest of the industrialized world in the most efficient and inclusive health care system ever devised: a Democratic president and Democratic majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives.

So here we are six years later, and those prerequisites have been fulfilled. So where is the single-payer solution? Dead as a doornail in the White House view. And now the president is backing away the extremely modest government-run public option in a proposal mainly designed to add millions of new customers to the bloated, inefficient and "uniquely American" for-profit corporate health insurance "industry". The plan advocates something that every conservative in America should be vocally opposing: a federal law requiring everyone to purchase some sort of private corporate insurance. Talk about restricting choice!

Let's repeat that: the government, run by public tax dollars, will require the citizens to purchase private corporate insurance. Whether it's through your employer or on your own, citizens will face a tax penalty if they cannot prove they are paying a for-profit corporation for health insurance. But there's more! Tax subsidies will be issued to those who cannot fully afford the legal requirement to buy insurance. The government will give public dollars to citizens to pass on to for-profit corporations. A bailout by another name? And these companies aren't failing financially!

At least a small public option would give the most economically disadvantaged Americans a recourse - a non-profit insurance group that would operate as a last resort. But the president has signaled that it's not essential. Instead, the for-profit system would have no competition or impetus to hold down costs/prices.

I could go on, but fortunately Matt Taibbi, writer and blogger at Rolling Stone, has effectively recapped the sordid history of the health care "reform" and analyzed the legislative loopholes that will continue to provide mega-millions in profits to companies who make money by denying care. And we will all suffer. Read his story, "Sick And Wrong" here:http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29988909/sick_and_wrong

P.S. You can find many videos of Mr. Obama promising on the campaign trail to sign a universal health care measure by the end of his first term. That gives him three more years and a couple of months - how does the current measure help advance that cause? Here he is advocating for single payer in 2003 - somehow, in six years, there's been a dramatic about face:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

Americans Don't Want War In Afghanistan, But Does It Really Matter What They Want?

Will the GOP become the anti-war party in 2010? They threatened an earlier war funding bill tghis year with their purely partisan opposition. Public support for the Democrat-led expansion of the Afghanistan occupation/war is dwindling, according to many reports released today. How will Democratic legislators explain their support for ongoing Middle East war after years of decrying the Bush/Republican invasion/occupation? Here's the CNN story:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/01/cnn-poll-afghanistan-war-opposition-at-all-time-high/

And McClatchy News is reporting that a rift is developing between the military and the administration on expanding the war. How is this going to set with the energy companies that need their oil pipelines/infrastructure located in a politically friendly Afghanistan? More troops are required, but "the additional troops are 'only a down payment on what would be required to turn things around, and everyone knows that,' said another senior military official."

Nice to see that American military lives are measured in terms of future payments for the profit of Big Oil. And that these same lives are a political football in Washington - that will be cold comfort for the mourning families of military men and women killed in the meantime.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/3303057

If President Obama really wants to create change, he could start by doing the morally correct thing - replace all those troops and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan with humanitarian aid and capital for civic improvements like hospitals, schools and power/communications plants. Think that is an option that will be discussed in Washington?

Obama The Tyrant? No, Just The Current Team Captain

I recently had an interesting email exchange with a respected colleague who told me that I often failed to give the Obama Administration "credit" when it was due. Announcements about new Justice Department investigations, directives and "reforms" sparked that conversation.

There have been encouraging signs: modification of some of the worst Bush-era policies in the environmental area, and the recent Justice Department announcement about investigating CIA torture activities and revamping its Civil Rights Division. But as many have pointed out, rolling back extreme right policies to a new "center" that still tilts to the right is not progress; and the CIA torture investigation ground rules could ultimately lead to another round of "punish the little guys while the big guys go free" results that are the norm for these exercises.

Despite these positive moves, in the major arenas of government action - war, surveillance, assisting corporate dominance - Team American Empire (TAE) continues to roll down the field. First, an excerpt from one of the exchanges:

"...we could definitely have a conversation about the assertion that 'overall domestic surveillance and secret prisons are okay' with the current administration.

Obama has specifically reversed and rejected Bush-era interrogation policies that allow for secret prisons (please give me examples that can show me what I’m missing), and before he was president he voted for a revised domestic surveillance program that put quite a few restrictions on what the government and private entities could and could not do (please give me examples that can show me what I’m missing).

I just don’t buy this notion that Obama somehow has a personal agenda to spy on Americans, take away their liberties, oppress citizens of other countries, and give every major corporation a big payday so he can retire happy."

(Drum roll, please) My response:

I do not believe that Mr. Obama has tyrannical or dictatorial ambitions.

He is the temporary team captain placed at the head of Team American Empire, a loose-knit collective with a single purpose: market domination and stability for financial profit. Team American Empire moves inexorably forward towards its goals via the combined efforts of the business community, its (often well-paid) cohorts in Congress and the revolving employment doors of government regulatory agencies. Every empire in history has followed the basic contours of this model. We are not re-inventing the wheel here.

The latest round of candidates for interim Empire team captain - Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain, Mrs. Clinton – all had been vetted by the major monied class. Whatever their differences, none of that trio were proposing to shut down the biggest business projects of our day: armaments and oil. And all were oppositional or purposely vague on health care reform (although I would like to believe Mrs. Clinton would have pushed hardest for meaningful change).

The guy sitting in the Presidential seat now may have the best intentions in the world, but he got to that position by being a willing team player. The current occupant, in his first six months, has undoubtedly proved he can be counted on to lead Team American Empire.

So it matters little what Mr. Obama’s personal feelings on key issues might be. The actions have been taken. In the realm of unhindered domestic surveillance, he voted to extend FISA – call me reactionary, but why does the government need to screen every email in America? Make all the new “restrictions” on surveillance you want – private communications corporations are assisting the government effort to screen everything. Maintaining a domestic surveillance network is much more about political paranoia and retaining domestic power than identifying “terrorists”.

Secret prisons – for me, it’s common sense. The President says we’ll close them, and the CIA director says they will be decommissioned. But do you trust the guys in charge of government-sponsored secrecy? The CIA and President both stated they will continue to detain and hold people for questioning – are they going to put them up in hotels? The intelligence arms of the Empire are not being reined in – they are shutting down old facilities and setting up new storefronts, just like they have throughout the post-WWII period.

Even if I believed there is a “reform”, where’s the public accountability to prove these prisons are truly closed? There is no outside-the-government oversight. The mainstream media is manipulated by the government, who knows they will rarely (if ever) begin serious investigations of its pronouncements. So how am I assured that this chapter is closed – I have to trust the President? It is not up to citizens to seek out and prove this information – it is the government’s responsibility to prove accomplishment of its promises to the citizens.

The prime enterprise for Team American Empire today is total dominance - military and financial - of the Middle East. For all the talk of withdrawing troops, Mr. Obama has delivered on his promise to expand the wars/occupation/financial subjugation in the Middle East. Again, he’s not a personal tyrant – just the guy currently in charge of the ongoing (for decades to come) TAE game plan to make Middle East oil a sure thing for big energy companies. McCain or Clinton would have followed this same playbook exactly. And in the next election cycle or two, if our current electoral system is still intact (any bets?), someone else who has been carefully screened and approved will take Obama's place to captain Team American Empire.

I think it boils down to who you choose to believe when it comes to "reforms." I do not accept the "trust us" security/intelligence “reforms” of a publicly-funded government that willfully engages in financially/spiritually corrupting illegal wars for private profit.

For me, this is a an all-or-nothing game. As long as Team American Empire captain Obama keeps getting plays from the owners of industry and money – and the expanding wars, massive domestic surveillance machine, and the fight to preserve health insurance industry profits all point to that reality – there’s little joy in the occasional instance of moving a case of extreme right practice back to the (rightward-drifting) center.

A Different Environment

Now it's time to go to the woods for a few days...

The Flaming Lips at Red Rocks

I've always had a soft spot for The Flaming Lips. They hail from Oklahoma City (my hometown), and I'm just a couple of years older than lead Lip Wayne Coyne. While I was growing up on the west side suburbs, Wayne and his family were living around the NW 10th and Pennslyvania area of OKC. And while I was learning to play guitar around the age of 13, just a couple of years later, Wayne and his brothers were doing the same thing.

But, unlike nearly all the wanna-be musicians I knew (including me), Wayne stuck to his dream of becoming a rock star. It took him a while - something like fifteen years of hard work, no money, keeping that assistant manager's job at Long John Silver's for a long time - but the release of "The Soft Bulletin" and "Yoshimi Battles The Pink Robots" turned The Flaming Lips into bona-fide international rock stars.

Their sound is a cool mashup of bubblegum, heavy metal, electro-pop, sixties outer space soundtracks and lounge-core crooning. But the songs are incisive, artful, painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny - usually all in the same tune. Lead singer Wayne Coyne's wavering relationship to the melodies anchors the band's futuristic, often pounding sound with a coy, frail humanity.

(Fight Test, All We Have Is Now, Race For The Prize, A Spoonful Weighs A Ton, Do You Realize? - all great songs that belong in some sort of songwriter's hall of fame!)

Sunday's show at the legendary Red Rocks Ampitheater was a tightly focused sensory onslaught that touched on all the Lips' musical strengths, from clanging pop metal to spacey instrumentals to unabashedly heartfelt sing-alongs. Accompanying the music was their trademark stage/light show, complete with tons of confetti, bullhorns spewing smoke, giant balloons, the human hamster ball and the usual brace of completely amateur, crazily costumed stage dancers.

You can check out multiple videos shot from the audience on You Tube. But better yet, take in a show - there is nothing out there like a Flaming Lips concert.

(I took some photos - a few of them are at the top - but gave up after a while and just enjoyed the circus! A more in depth review from yours truly is available here: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll)

Honduran Political Song For Michael Jackson To Sing

The old Minutemen punk-rock classic "Political Song For Michael Jackson To Sing" will have to be revised - here's a geo-political question to ask while the late Mr. Jackson is getting buried next week: what ever happened in that Honduras coup? Remember? The story that got buried in the USA when MJ conveniently died?

New articles in the last week take interesting views. The Associated Press issued a story on leftist/progressive leaders in Latin America going on heightened alert following the seemingly-successful ouster of the democratically elected Honduran president Manuel Zelaya. And the USA - the biggest military, trade and aid player in Latin America - is never mentioned. Hmmm....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/19/ap/latinamerica/main5252359.shtml

And here is an opinion piece from The Guardian UK on the Honduran overthrow - and how the US government's relative inaction amounts to an approval of the military takeover. From the article:

" A clue...given by the (US) state department's Phillip Crowley, who explained that the coup should be a "lesson" to Zelaya for regarding revolutionary Venezuela as a model for the region."

So the Administration likes democracy as long as it's following the right guidelines - and if not, we'll take the generals supported by the rich men, thanks!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/12/honduras-coup-democracy-barack-obama

Given the very recent revelation (through declassified documents) of President Nixon working with the military dictators of Brazil to assist the overthrow of the elected Chilean government in 1972, and remembering the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s (which saw Honduras emerge as the pre-eminent US military home base in Latin America), the current Honduran situation should not be a surprise.

The King of Pop once sang that it doesn't matter if you're black or white. For the new Political Song For Michael Jackson To Sing, let's change that to: doesn't matter if you're a Republican government or a Democratic one - when it comes to Latin America, Uncle Sam prefers ultra-conservative military regimes to wayward, progressive elected ones.

(See D. Boon and Minutemen perform "Political Song For Michael Jackson To Sing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2-CgCyh5YM)