Grassroots, Geeks, Pros, and Pols: How the People Lost and Won, 2000-2008, by Election Integrity (EI) activist Marta Steele, is a history of the Election Integrity movement from 2000 to 2008, highlighting the corrupt practices of that decade, and how the people rallied to control and ultimately overcome them, at least in Election 2008. What happened thereafter will become another book.

     The culprits were highly corruptible and low-quality machines and the machinery that allowed them to proliferate, defying the will of the people in favor of conservative values unconcerned with the exigent issues that drew the people to the polls. Voters turned out in record numbers in 2008. Thirty percent of those who usually sit out elections (a total of about 100 million) showed up. For their will not to have prevailed would have represented the biggest travesty in our nation's history; and yet a week before Election Day both John McCain and Karl Rove were predicting a Republican victory.

     Then Rove changed his mind on the eve of Election Day, predicting that Obama would win. But this occurred after the huge battle, at so many levels, ultimately boiled down to a deposition in Columbus, Ohio, on November 3, 2008, of a Rove IT operative. Once Judge Solomon Oliver found holes in the deposition, the people's will exploded and the people's choice went to Washington.

     Perhaps the day before Election 2008 did not become the major holiday it should have because the machinery of election corruption is up and running again and the people are still fighting. But in Grassroots, Geeks, Pros, and Pols the dramatic victory achieved was a successful revolution and in the long run may be remembered for that.

     The ultimate success will not be a sigh of relief and a cheer for a brief period of time, but the permanent death of anti-American activities.

     Our vote is our sacred right, nothing we need to acquire with a government-issued photo i.d. It is the bottom line of democracy. Without it, there is no democracy, which is not an abstract noun but continuous work. All this our founding fathers knew and passed down to us, a tough legacy and challenge but well worth our necessary efforts.

Grassroots, Geeks, Pros, and Pols will be published this summer. Advance copies can be ordered. Watch here for further information as it becomes available.

########################################################################

17 May 2012: I-Voting: A Breakthrough Is Needed

In a lively and provocative panel discussion today at George Washington University (GWU) in Washington, DC, a panel of experts addressed and spoke with a roomful of experts on the trials and tribulations of the prospect that two-thirds of the states are planning to implement Internet voting (which I will call I-voting, to distinguish it from the more generic term e-voting) in the critical election year of 2012.

     Moderated by GWU's Dr. Lance Hoffman, director of the Cyber Security Policy and Research Institute (CSPRI, also cosponsor), the panel included attorney Matt Masterson, the Deputy Elections Administrator for the Ohio Secretary of State and member of the Elections Assistance Commission's guidelines committee; J. Alex Halderman, assistant professor of computer science and engineering at the University of Michigan; and Dr. Costis Toregas, assistant director of the CSPRI.

     Sponsoring the panel, which attracted participants from as far away as Florida and California, was the GWU-based CSPRI, founded to promote interdisciplinary research on problems related to computer security and information assurance.

     The event was co-sponsored by the grassroots group Verified Voting, founded in 2002 by cyber experts and computer scientists as well as concerned citizens, and now headed by Pam Smith, who addressed the group at the beginning and end.

     Said Smith, there are all sorts of systems transmitting votes over the Internet. Among them are two laudable endeavors: emailing ballots overseas to be printed up and faxed or mailed back, and online registration, once the glitches are addressed, especially those produced by corrupt practices.

     It is the ease with which the Internet can be hacked into [and a 100 percent probability of that, Halderman added later] that should hinder the proliferation of I-voting before its time--that is, before breakthroughs accomplish what seems today to be impossible, the security and integrity of our votes. (Today one hundred percent of I-voting invites fraud, said Halderman later.) When the needed breakthroughs are made, which may not be for decades, we can progress.

     Until then, transparency and security are best accomplished through hand-counted paper ballots (hcpb). There was some applause from the group, though differences of opinion were evident.

     Halderman, the first panelist to speak, noted that electronic voting in this country is the product of vendors with minimal input from computer scientists, who comprise a sizable majority of activist groups inveighing against such machinery, and who succeeded in sharply reducing the number of direct-recording electronic voting machines (DREs) to one-third of all used; the other two-thirds are optical scanners (opscans), with a smattering of hcpb used in New Hampshire and far too few other places.

     The UMI professor worked with the well-publicized Princeton University computer scientists who hacked into Diebold TSx machinery in 2006 in less than a minute. To our amusement, he admitted that the machine used was authentic, donated anonymously by someone who met them in a dark alley behind a hotel in New York City, who handed them the "goods" in a black suitcase.

     Diebold, hugely sensitive about all the negative publicity it had already attracted, had made it difficult to obtain its machinery more easily.

     With one infected memory card, said Halderman, all of the voting machinery in the state could be virused. In New Jersey all voting is done on DREs.

     These findings were corroborated by the famous Top-to-Bottom study ordered in California by the newly elected secretary of state Debra Bowen, a project in which Halderman participated.

     The Princetonians next turned to Sequoia AVC Advantage DREs, used by most counties in New Jersey. By successfully running the oldest version of the computer game Pacman through it, the group proved that these machines were also easily hackable when used for their primary purpose, voting.

     I-voting presents whole new sets of challenges, continued Halderman. Before the 2010 general election, a mock election was held, with the public invited to hack it if they could. The format was open source--that is, the source code was publicized. Voters, given a personal i.d., saved it and voted. But the complicated source code was inevitably found to contain a bug--single quotation marks had mistakenly been used where double quotes were needed. And thus the machinery was invaded.

     The real election had been scheduled a week later. Halderman's team invaded subtly, adding a UMI football fighting song where a "thank-you" page had previously ended the process for the public. The glitch was discovered two days before the event, which was quickly called off.

     The technology wasn't ready for prime time. The people downloaded ballots from the Internet and mailed them in.

     At this stage, to preserve software independence and transparency, paper ballots still win out as the best method. They tend, so far, to shy away from I-voting where it occurs, he added later--a case in point was a very small recent election in Hawaii, where the number of usual voters dropped considerably.

     Huge questions remain before I-voting assumes center stage: eliminating the possibly of remote intrusion via malware, spyware, and phishing. This could be decades away. Thirty years of research in this area have already passed.

     Email and fax as voting vehicles in small quantities are acceptable as a last resort, he added later. At least they are sure to reach their destination on time, unlike ballots mailed in from overseas.

     The stakes are so high in close elections, he also added later; witness as examples the electronic sabotage of the Iranian nuclear system, and online attacks as forums of protest, as in the case of Wikileaks.

*****

Adding election administration to the fray, Matt Masterson told us that I-voting is illegal in his home state, Ohio.

     Stepping back a decade, he said that until the Help America Vote act (HAVA) was passed, election administration was a backstage operation, if anything.

     Since then, election officials have become PR agents: explaining processes to the press, directing and training poll workers, handling audits, and managing IT systems.

     In the office, they direct registration, poll-workers lists, and payroll. Election officials are getting better and better at understanding the complexities of IT as it applies to voting.

     At the county level, they deal with governments and employees.

     The number one question he is asked, said Masterson, is why not I-voting? Society expects it. We do everything else online, including adopting children, filing tax returns, and even purchasing homes, sight unseen.

     He called HAVA technology "old hardware-dependent," when it's time for independence. The new direction should involve commercial over-the-counter software (COTS); equipment shouldn't sit in storage all year but be replaced by iPads, which can perform a range of tasks, just as Halderman's team was able to program the Sequoia Advantage machinery to run a Pac-man game.

     In another realm, election officials want to intervene in another problem area: 60 percent of military and other Americans who live overseas can't vote successfully. Email voting is a risk he's willing to take.

*****

Costis Toregas, next to speak, is associate director of CSPRI and a graduate-level instructor of public administration. His answer to the question whether this country is ready to vote? He turned to an unlikely analogue, the Internet voting done to select winners in the tv show "American Idol." As many as 120 million Americans vote in the last round, though voting more than once is permitted.

     The voting is done via AT&T texting, Facebook, or dialing a toll-free 800 number.

     As a humanist, he opined that this country is ready for I-voting. The issue is cyber security versus risk management, and lowering the level of the latter to an acceptable figure.

     Interdisciplinary tasking can accomplish this, Toregas said. That is the bottom line of CSPRI--the coming together of the administrative, technological, and industrial. All three must respond to user input.

     Wearing yet another hat, as chief election judge in an area of Maryland adjacent to the District, he said that poll workers are not yet "up to speed" in technology. As volunteers at the old side of the age spectrum, they use low-speed modems to transmit results to the county.

     No law yet exists to implement solutions. The process is not easy.

     The solution involves balancing multiple inputs. Who is the end user? The voters? The election administrators? The poll workers?

     Trained also as a system scientist and engineer, his perspective is to find standards of procedure and use all resources.

     Handling professionals and vendors comprises the final puzzle piece, he said. Perhaps use of iPads and COTS will be the answer. Perhaps even cellphones or computers. He reminded us of the nearly hundred million qualified citizens too indifferent to vote. If they could use cellphones or home computers without interrupting their daily routine, they might rejoin the mainstream and increase this country's poor showing on Election Day and move us closer to the democracy we aspire toward. We are way behind other developed countries in terms of numbers who show up to vote.

     Returning to the subject of security, he asserted that nothing is secure; even benign programs can be invaded, as when a function of Excel was stolen by Skype inadvertently.

     For Toregas, then, the bottom line is risk management.

*****

The next segment of the event involved discussion among the panelists. Halderman said that the combination of a high level of integrity and the secret ballot may not be possible. I-voting will approach a closer reality if we give up the secret ballot.

     What are the ramifications? he added later: the secret ballot prevents coercion, which can come about through voting at home or at the office.

     Otherwise the huge challenge persists. The "American Idol" model does not involve a secret ballot, but social discourse on I-voting is important.

     The UMI professor said that in the fall he will offer an online, noncredit course via COURSERA. Five thousand students have already signed up for it.

     To obtain the security we need for I-voting, said Masterson, we need a DoD-level budget to finance DoD-level security [which has already been compromised].

     Toregas, as a sociologist, disagreed. As Generation Xers, his children have an entirely different value set, he said. They want quick results: all should vote at the lowest possible cost.

     The social structure is evolving; solutions should therefore reflect new generations' values as well as ours.

*****

Pam Smith wrapped up the proceedings with a goal for the present: use the best voting method accessible today: hcpb.

Note: Answers to audience questions have been incorporated into the main text with such markers as "he added later." Also, the photo above is of a lever machine from the 1890s, taken at the Sewall-Belmont House in Washington, DC, which is dedicated to the history of the Women's Suffrage movement.

(c)

1 May 2012: Occupy Rallies and Mayday March Peaceful in DC: A Journalist's Journal

Crowds milled around the White House the early evening of May 1, a spectacular day. The usual cast-iron gates seemed more protective than ever, even though the president preferred Afghanistan to this scenario closer to home: an Occupy DC rally and march.

     Would the Occupiers be distinguishable from all these tourists? I wondered.

     There were so many nationalities--parents and kids, turbans and saris, hardly a black person in sight. You can tell the American whites from others because they are smug and loud. Are they part of the 99 percent? They don't seem to be, exuding prosperity as they do.

     Where are the Occupiers? I ask a policeman. "Who?" he asks. "The protesters. Are they on the other side?" "No, they'll be here."

     It's seven and I don't see them. Here comes another crowd, but protesters don't wear peach-colored shorts.

     The lady with the red, white, and blue lai has departed. Here's a picture:

     What a mess it will be if protesters do show up. Some officious guy in all black asks me where they are. The clumps of tour groups are marching for them.

     DC Occupy doesn't like me. I've visited them a few times. They treat me like the one percent, which I'm not.

     They're gone from the DC encampments, I was told later. The ones at McPherson were rudely and roughly dispersed, in the act of complying with the orders, by policemen on horseback, who had been affable a week ago. Park police, who were supposed to be nicer than the others.

     Two guys in light blue, Oxford cloth shirts pass by--plainclothesmen? I stare uneasily. They stare back.

     There's a guy sitting on the curb with signs. Two police immediately join him, from a distance. "Bin Laden was on the right side, Arab. We're on the wrong one," reads one. "US Out of Afghanistan," reads another. There must be at least fifty of them. He's not Occupy, he says, but he'll demonstrate with them. He's lining the street with signs as tourists watch.

     In Oakland and Seattle today, the rallies stormed, but here it didn't rain--God didn't want to soak the tourists.

     Wow, a crowd of teenage girls in uniforms. They're dressed too warmly. Sweaters and dark stockings. I ask one where they're from. Brooklyn. What school? Beth Jacob of Bar Park. There must be one hundred of them. Orthodox Jews, no doubt.

     The Occupiers first rallied at Malcolm X Park this afternoon in Columbia Heights, 1.5 miles away, a woman later told me. There were many speakers, along with a Union choir that sang a capella. A few hundred people showed up. Lots of Communists, she said.

     Look, the tourists are marching for us. Here are the peace people around that tent that's been there since 1981, the twenty-four-hour vigil by a lady named Concepción. There is a petition linked to at the site www.whitehousepeacevigil.org, collecting signatures to persuade the government to build a permanent structure to replace the tent and make it more inhabitable all times of the year.

     A woman on metal crutches, in her mid-fifties, is an Occupier who's been with the group since its inception at the beginning of October 2011. She wears a red and white khafiya, expressing sympathy with the Palestinians. She said she was injured in February by a policeman on a horse he couldn't control. That on top of Lyme disease and arthritis. She has been in every state on the continent. She was trained as an EMT when she was in the army, so that she served as a medic for Occupy DC. "Why are these things always all about the police?" I ask her.

     It's now about 7:40. A chant rises from a distance: "We are the 99 percent!" over and over again. Awesome. "The people united will never be defeated!" they continue and repeat. The group of three hundred fills the width of the road. By this time the tourist crowds have dwindled, but those who remain are friendly and inquisitive. The marchers are headed up by a giant sunflower dragon (see picture under title; here is another):

     One man clearing up the dragon later asks me what I would eat if I were one. "The one percent!" I answer.

     The crowd stops in front of the White House. Speakers have traveled from as far away as the Philippines, Honduras, and Bengla Desh. I see Che Guevara on the back of a shirt and on a flag. This is the leftest event I have attended since I used to follow ANSWER.

     Here is a photo of a reporter photographing himself as he narrates what's going on:

     A few people stand around one carrying an Israeli flag. I am amazed to see one within such a leftist assemblage. I go closer. Some people are attacking the people attending the flag. The Israel people's arguments back aren't terribly convincing. "What chutzpah," I think to myself. I ask a man standing next to me to please lift a corner of the flag so that I can photograph it. "I'm not Jewish, so I won't," he answers with a straight face. Heil Hitler! But the flag is unassailed and tolerated otherwise. Quite moving actually.

     Speakers representing labor unions recall pivotal events from the past, massacres and triumphs. The International Workers' Rights Day originated with the Haymarket Riots in the late nineteenth century, I read. But it is now celebrated nearly everywhere but here. Says another speaker: "We may not see it in our lifetimes, but it happened with the Soviet Union, with China, and with Vietnam! Fascism is here! Millions of lives could have been saved!" "Join us! Join us! Join us! Fight back!" I leave soon after. The event is breaking up. The police barriers stashed neatly nearby were not necessary. I did hear one policeman mutter, "We’ve got'em in our trunks." Riot gear, probably. Tasers. Not tonight, Josephine. We gave peace a chance.

(c)

#####

Today at DC's Center for American Progress (CAP), three distinguished liberals (one actually a Social Democrat) discussed the history of liberalism and its roots. The moderator was John Halpin, a senior fellow at CAP, and the guests were author, professor, and CAP Senior Fellow Eric Alterman and Michael Kazin, a professor of social movements and politics at Georgetown University.

The occasion was the recent (April 12) publication of Alterman’s latest book, The Cause: The Fight for American Liberalism from Franklin Roosevelt to Barack Obama (New York: Viking 2012), coauthored with Kevin Mattson and called by CAP "the first full-scale treatment of postwar liberalism."

     A history of liberalism is most valuable for all those left of the Right wing, I'd say, because the Right wing, for all intents and purposes, can’t be reached. A consistent theme throughout the stimulating discussion was that liberalism has lost its self-confidence. Too personified for my taste, but true.

     After the discussion, it became clear to me, and Alterman agreed, that the ruthless surgeon/amputator was the deterioration of our public school system that can be traced back to the seventies along with the rise of plutocracy and its dumbing down of the populace to the level of irrationality that fuels the money grubbers.

     The sixties Children's Crusade was led, after all, by middle and upper-middle class college students seeking to activate the principles they were studying as part of their humanities curriculum, emphasis on which has decreased also with the rise of the plutocracy over the decades since the seventies.

     The Enlightenment is the backbone of liberalism, said Alterman, that flowering of reason that fueled the American Revolution and the values it sought to perpetrate.

     "Liberalism has a lot to learn," he said. The key to life is learning from the mistakes of others, he continued, quoting his good friend Warren Buffet.

     Along with the Enlightenment came the second of its three main roots, New Deal liberalism, which added the theme that beliefs must be realized, not simply idealized. The government must be on the side of individuals, championing equality of opportunity, which became an issue in this country with the advent of the industrial revolution.

     The third principal root of liberalism was a product of the 1960s, cultural liberalism, which demanded civil rights for those who had never before enjoyed them. The problem with this emphasis is that it must be coupled with economic liberalism to be effective, said Alterman. And it was'’t.

     Kazin's very valuable contribution at this point was to distinguish between liberalism and the Left wing. "The Left brings up issues that liberals won’t face," he said. For liberals, slavery was an issue that would resolve itself through time, a problem that could be solved by deporting all blacks back to Africa. For the abolitionists, who ultimately triumphed, there was no compromise. The slaves had to be freed, and they were.

     In the late nineteenth century, the labor unions that arose to protect and sponsor workers' rights were led by radicals and considered radical, even by liberals, who hated strikes, which were frequent at that time.

     To accomplish what needs to be done, said Kazin, the Left must ally themselves with the liberal elite. Added Halpin, the Left feels freer to criticize government than do liberals.

     Liberals and the Left are nearly symbiotic, said Alterman. Liberals, including the Kennedys and LBJ, were late to champion civil rights in the sixties and had to be prodded, but to get the job done, LBJ was as crucial as the radical MLK.

     The liberals also stab themselves in the back with internal back stabbing over disagreements, losing sight of their friends, the Left wing, and in this process, their opposition to their real opponents, the right wing, is being weakened. The Right wing presents a united front against them, further diluting their strength.

     This double destructiveness opened the door to the likes of Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes.

     The Occupy movement is wonderful, said Kazin, but in equating Obama with the Republicans they fail to take advantage of real opportunities.

*****

The first part of Alterman's book focuses on the liberal political giants Henry Wallace, FDR, and Harry Truman. Wallace, the most radical of the three, was brave enough to travel South to speak out against racism, as did Rev. Billy Graham.

     Here Cazin injected FDR, though the book begins with his death, who gave the greatest speeches on the subject of the economy; the one on the Four Freedoms is considered the best exstant statement on liberalism. Emblazoned on Mount Rushmore as one of the four greatest presidents, FDR was nothing if not a pragmatist, doing what worked, said Alterman; no ideology buttressed the New Deal, which he called "the greatest advance of civilization." Compromise was key.

     Said Alterman, Truman's anticommunism dictated the rest of his policies, planting the seeds of the Vietnam war that would so destroy liberalism's hold on the government, along with the Keynesianism that had prevailed from the New Deal to the 1960s and 1970s, the era when we “couldn't even beat a fifth-rate nation," Kazin said, quoting LBJ.

     Alterman’s favorite liberals are not politicians. Eleanor Roosevelt tops his list, along with Bill Moyers, Cornel West, and Bruce Springsteen. Among politicians, Alterman favors Jerry Brown [I think that’s the "Brown" he was referring to], the late Paul Wellstone, and Barney Frank.

     In retrospect, said Kazin, the rich were taxed fairly in the 1960s and 1970s, which kept the economy stable.

     In the early 1960s, one milestone was the March on Washington, DC, supported by Walter Reuther of the United Auto Workers' Union (UAW), who also funded the civil rights movement. The Kennedys kept baby brother Teddy from marching, but he espoused the cause. This great liberal, elected to Congress soon after, had the guts to support bussing of students to different public schools to attain more educational equality throughout Boston, standing up to the blustering opposition of some of his strongest supporters.

     Meanwhile, the War on Poverty did not defeat that beast and people began to lose faith in the government, said Kazin.

     Alterman located the fall of liberalism in LBJ's fear of debating, despite his rough and tough facade. Cognizant of the futile destructiveness of the war with that "fifth-rate nation," he allowed it to run its course. The liberals took on too much. The notorious riot in Watts (Los Angeles) took place days after the Voting Rights Act was passed.

     Liberals got into a box, the author continued, and their economic foundations crumbled. Jobs went overseas. The benign moderates were attacked from within and without. Their self-confidence plunged. They lost their voice. They no longer knew how to solve their problems. He said that in this country, to acquire respect, one must stand for something. The Republicans were united, while the Democrats represented a coalition.

     At this point, Halpin noted that liberalism is strong at the social and cultural levels, but economically weak. Alterman added that regaining their self-confidence is the biggest issue that they face.

     How is this possible for a movement grounded in the Enlightenment up against a dumbed-down public, Cheney, Rove, and their ilk smirking as the super-rich executives of the bailed-out Wall Street banks bask in record profits?

     Today 17 percent of the American public trust government, said Alterman (despite Obama's nailing of bin Laden last year), stymying the liberal agenda. The conservatives have taken over, letting their money talk where ideology fails.

*****

Audience questions lent further insights to the conversation. Liberalism must stand up for morality in politics, said Kazin. Obama has been mum on health care for two years, effacing his greatest accomplishment. The future of liberalism requires economic pressure from the Left. By supporting capitalism and not looking for alternatives, liberals fail to address the economy, he said. His own political ideology is that of a Social Democrat, a sort of compromise between socialism and capitalism--witness how poorly the socialist democracies in Western Europe are faring at this point. The Georgetown professor said that Democrats are afraid of losing their public, but they must take the offensive in the areas of taxes, the environment, labor, and other causes that directly affect their constituents. Said Alterman, the liberals are moving to the right. And, to reiterate, losing their self-confidence as valuation of the Enlightenment "goes South" for now. Alterman noted that, in his Earth Day speech, Obama did not even mention global warming.

(c)

19 April 2012: The World You Destroy May Be Your Own, or That $18 Billion Is Still in Chevron's Pockets

     The good news is that, after nineteen years of litigation, the indigenous people and farmers of the Ecuadorian Amazon, who suffered hideously in the wake of Chevron's devastating oil contamination of their land that destroyed not only human lives, health, and livelihoods but also their lifestyle altogether, have been awarded $18 billion.

     Now wouldn't you think that after nineteen years in court protesting their innocence with a battery of as many as five hundred lawyers, the bill might approach $18 billion?

     What will it cost the desperately grappling behemoth before it pays up? It's not as if the natives received a big fat check the day after the most recent appeal flopped.

     Poor Chevron-Texaco. After spilling some 345 million gallons of crude (according to EcoWatch) over thousands of lives over a period of three decades, its holdings in Latin America may be seized. Justice may prevail. The $18 billion to atone for the past is incomparable to the value of the oil giant's evacuation. Let's pray for that.

     That's the news from Ecuador. See the site http://chevrontoxico.com for more.

     Who cares about primitives who wear beads and put on war paint when they're mad?

     At least that received some publicity. Especially after the Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico two years ago; some of us remember while others have read about it more recently. Don't forget about the Exxon Valdes disaster that mangled another culture at Prince William Sound, Alaska, in 1989, also caused by attempts to scrimp on safety precautions as much as by a drunk pilot.

     Spilled oil is still there too while a culture lies in ruins.

     Other dispensable rabble took a beating near Baku, Azerbaijan, in 2008, when a similar, but not quite as severe blowout occurred there, courtesy this time of BP, that "clean green" Goliath, all in the name of saving a few nickels, worth more than human lives and their ecosystems.

     But that's illegal, according to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmental expert and activist, especially after voluminous assurances of how safe their oil rigs were, delving into ocean depths untraveled, hardly charted. How can any such machinery be "safe" for long? Especially when the main precaution is plugs made of quick-drying cement, a device any teenager might suggest to a science teacher?

     The platform filled with highly flammable methane gas and the mud-like cement. Lacing the mud with nitrogen is lethal--it creates channels in the quick-dry cement, weakening its resistance against the explosive push of the methane. Had this disaster been publicized, the Gulf blowout would not have occurred. The nitrogen would have been subtracted from the mixture. Halliburton knew about that. Remember them? Cheney may have a new heart but no change of heart, but that’s another story.

     Those attempting to cover the event a few days after it happened, including famous Truth Sleuth Greg Palast, were arrested and then quickly released to avoid a diplomatic blowout. Two witnesses who suffered at the site of the blowout disappeared the way that whisteblowers tend to--it's either the front page or disappearance. I think that those in the latter case suffer even more. In Azerbaijan it's a daily occurrence.

     So that's part of the news from Azerbaijan. What happened there is no longer a secret concealed by bribery and corruption by you-know-who. "The sea was bubbling all around [from boiling methane]," reported Palast, so that sending in lifeboats would have been dangerous. Deathboats? Bigger vehicles were needed.

     BP did issue a press release, about a gas leak near a platform.

     It did not add, nor foresee, that such negligence would lead to the biggest oil spill in US history and all the lethal damage that entailed.

*****

When I warned in the above title that the civilization you destroy may be your own, I'm addressing not only Chevron-Texaco and BP. I mean all those in the one percent here and abroad to whom the value of indigent and destitute human life is worth a farthing compared to the mammoth profits that are wind to their sails.

     Drill, baby, drill, or chill, baby, chill? They'd better be careful where they build their mansions. Soon not an inch of the land we occupy will be undefiled as we plunder every resource of Earth.

     Will they do anything if one of their mansions or yachts is elevated skyward by a gusher? Doubt it.

     The life they lose may be their own. But in the twenty-first century, history doesn't count and no one learns from their "mistakes."

Photo courtesy of EcoWatch.

1 April 2012: The U.S. Electoral System and the American Dream: April Fool!

Remember that Martian who landed on the lawn of Our Nation's Capitol in my previous blog (27 March 2012)? The one who noticed that the people with dark skin were rallying for something different than the ones with the light skin wanted?

     He asked me about other important features of our Western civilization that concern me. He said that on his planet people have every skin color imaginable, like the Muppets, and there is no discrimination on that basis.

     I did not think to ask him if there were other bases for Martian discrimination.

     I told him about the shrinking electorate and all those people, including bribed Democrats, who are working to disenfranchise underprivileged minorities. That those controlling this process represent a minute fraction of our population doesn't seem to make a difference.

     I wondered what perspective he might lend to this atrocity.

     He said that it seemed to him as though those holding the strings of our society want to pull us back to another era when only a few people had the vote.

     One such era, it occurred to me, was at the dawn of our nation's history, when only rich people, with light skin, were allowed to vote--"rich" in this case meaning those with property, even an ass, as Ben Franklin liked to joke.

     But this situation did not last long. Soon all taxpayers acquired the right to vote; then veterans, then immigrants, and then even former slaves, people with dark skin.

     Then, when women began to agitate for this right, things started going downhill, despite the Fifteenth Amendment and even the Nineteenth Amendment, which took a while to come about thereafter. So that the vote extended to the largest variety of people a bit past the middle of the nineteenth century, as the industrial age began to supplant the agrarian age.

     The most varieties of people, and perhaps a higher percentage of the people, but I can't promise this.

     What I can say with confidence is that there is a larger variety of ways to disenfranchise people in this country these days than there are varieties to discriminate against, and that's saying a lot, because there is such a multitude of nationalities and ethnicities who have arrived here recently, reaching for the good life depicted in reruns of old TV shows and old Hollywood movies that get passed around all over the world, even to people living under Stone Age circumstances in SubSaharan Africa.

     iPods and iPads have come there, too. Their Stone Age really rocks [bad pun].

*****

"If only rich people vote, then only rich people will be in office," noted my green friend. "What will happen to everybody else? They'd be treated better on Mars, where there is no such thing as rich or poor. Every year we put all of our possessions together and split them up with complete parity, blindfolded. No one ever heard of money."

     But if the rich people put the rest of us on a spaceship to Mars, could they do without us, I wondered, not wanting to overchallenge my friend, who couldn't wait to get back on his spaceship and leave this zoological Inferno.

     What would happen is that the rich people would divide themselves up into classes based on exactly how rich they were. The lower class would consist of those who earned less than $1 million a year, I supposed. $250,000 to $1 million, to be more exact. The rest of us would be gone. They wouldn't know the difference. They'd be too busy concentrating on amounts of melanin in their skin and things like that.

     What would we 99 percent do when we got to Mars? Promptly pollute their pristine civilization with the warped priorities that plague all of us, still in the grips of the American dream?

     "I've decided to uninvite the 99 percent of Americans who are not super-rich from coming to Mars," said my green friend, tipping his hat as he headed back for his flying saucer, which no one had noticed.

     "You're welcome to visit anytime," he added, though not with a great deal of conviction. He was just being polite.

*****

We need more innocent objectivity to show us what we are doing besides creating a slippery slope to hell. My friend's flying saucer rose quickly into the atmosphere. I knew he was going at full speed. Why did no one else even notice? I wasn't imagining things.

     It's just that what's happening here is beyond imagination. And we're wasting a lot of time and money. Why not just rescind those articles in the Bill of Rights that extend the vote to minorities? Instead, every technique possible is being used to disenfranchise people. And those who don't want this to happen are slapping a few wrists with their palms flat, palms that are quickly filled with bribes.

     Shall I list the ways in which disenfranchisement is spreading over this country like lava eructed from a live volcano?

One: Violation of all of the Bill of Rights amendments pertaining to voting rights.

Two: Proliferation of electronic machinery that is permeable to a huge variety of corruption, both built-in and externally stimulated.

Three: Long, fabricated lists of people who are not allowed to vote because they may have a name similar to a felon's somewhere in this country, or the name on the registration list may not match a name on other government lists because it is hard to spell or has been changed or lacks a middle initial.

Four: New laws that require lists of new registrants to be handed in within forty-eight hours or else (otherwise large amounts of money will be charged).

Five: Forms of caging, including robocalls that tell people that Election Day has been moved to Wednesday or that it has been canceled or is open only to people whose names begin with A- to L-, etc.; Sending notices to people bound not to be accessible because of foreclosure or service in the military or change of address (notices are marked "do not forward"). Distributing leaflets warning that people with unpaid parking tickets will be arrested if they try to vote; etc.

Six: Harassment of people at the polls on Election Day by people with cameras, disguised as police or CIA staked out in cars with blacked-out windows.

     Seven: Other forms of harassment of people of color, including early closing of polls, late opening, street barriers, sending away first-time voters.

Eight: Extreme legislation requiring government-issued photo IDs that 11 percent of the population now lack and making it impossible for them to obtain them.

Nine: Attempted introduction of the most corruptible election systems of all, Internet voting.

Ten: Creation of all sorts of roadblocks at the polls in impoverished neighborhoods that hold up lines for hours.

Eleven: Provision of too few voting machines in these same neighborhoods to make voting even more difficult.

Twelve: Violation of the Motor Voter Act by not reminding potential voters that they can register at places where they collect entitlements or driver's licenses, which brings us back to

Thirteen: Violation of all of the Bill of Rights, which amounts to

Fourteen: Violation of the U.S. Constitution, which required so many amendments in order to provide all of the amenities we are struggling to hang on to today.

*****

Have I left anything out? Paying meteorologists to seed clouds on Election Day to bring bad weather to impoverished neighborhoods? Undoubtedly I have instead merely scratched the surface.

*****

My green friend is gone; as his flying saucer heads home, rotation is happening elsewhere, of question marks around my head.

     Why bother fighting back when every problem in this country is these days solved with a hand gun, and abroad with WMD?

     I think I'll train to become an astronaut and then go explore the universe for a planet as enlightened as Mars that will accept us 99 percent and cleanse us of the American Dream.

(c)

27 March 2012: Day 2: Some SCOTUS PHOTOS

The action today was certainly here:

     A Martian landing on the lawn of Our Nation's Capitol might have wondered why lots of people with dark skin were opposing a smaller number of people with white skin--peacefully, of course.

     Amid hundreds of onlookers, including one hundred different progressive groups, lines of demonstrators defended Obamacare heartily and colorfully; the Martian would have noted that lots more people favored than opposed this Obamacare.

     Statistics indicate otherwise. Lots of people oppose Obamacare, but the chief opposition, a couple without insurance, went bankrupt from health-care expenses after that.

     The prognosis is glum, I learned from attorneys and reporters who heard this pivotal day 2 of the hearings. Most expect the usual 5-4 to defeat the individual mandate; the rest of the legislation may or may not survive. This will represent the first time in seventy-five years that landmark legislation by a sitting president was overturned by SCOTUS, though Citizens United was said de facto to have overturned the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation.

     I could have entitled this piece "Clarence Thomas Asked No Questions," but that would be as clear as entitling an early op-ed on the Florida 2000 debacle "Slumber Party," as Frank Rich did in a February 2001 piece in the New York Times.

     Following are some photos taken on this perfect day in cherry-blossom-festooned Washington, DC:

(c)

20 March 2012: Lillian Light,* "Preventing the Next Nuclear Catastrophe"

March marked the first anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear accident, an accident that still has not ended. At least 80,000 Japanese people have lost their homes and livelihoods. Hundreds of thousands more are living in contaminated zones, afraid of the food they eat and the water they drink. They have good reason for fear, since scientists have found that one millionth of a gram of plutonium, if inhaled or ingested, can cause cancer. A goat named Katie lived near the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant in Connecticut for several years. Her milk contained high levels of radioactivity, and she has been stricken with inoperable cancer. On the Fukushima anniversary, March 11, she was taken to the White House to protest nuclear proliferation. The protesters were urging President Obama to oppose taxpayer support of two new nuclear power plants in Georgia.

      A most interesting article, "Nuclear Fallout," appeared on page 9 in the Sunday Review section of the March 11 issue of the New York Times. The writer, Kristen Iversen, is the author of the forthcoming book, "Full Body Burden: Growing up in the Nuclear Shadow of Rocky Flats." The article maintains that neither nuclear power plant managers nor government officials can be trusted to protect people from dangerous exposure to radioactive elements. A report on the Fukushima meltdown recently published in the March first Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists details the extensive misinformation supplied to the public by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) in collusion with Japanese officials. This failure to warn people about radioactive danger put a lot of them at risk in Japan and in other countries as well. The report concludes that the much vaunted "absolute safety" of nuclear power is no more than a "twisted myth."

      Quoting from the article: "The threat from nuclear power plants is twofold: grand scale catastrophe and continuing health problems connected with radioactive contamination in our air, water, soil, and food supply--both short-term, high-level contamination and the long-term, low-level kind." Both Japanese and American officials suppress the truth about dangerous nuclear contamination. Ms Iversen reports that Rocky Flats, which produced plutonium "triggers" for nuclear weapons from 1952 to 1989, was profoundly contaminated, leaked plutonium into the soil, and had two large fires in 1957 and 1969. These fires sent radioactive plumes over a wide area including Denver, while radioactive and toxic contaminants routinely escaped from the plant. The public was never warned. When Dr. Carl Johnson, a Jefferson County health director, opposed housing development near Rocky Flats because of the health risks, he was fired.

      How much have you heard about the Hanford area that housed nine nuclear reactors, and is now one of the most heavily contaminated places on earth? It may be leaking radioactive elements into the Columbia River. Thirty seven of the 104 nuclear plants in the US have been confirmed to be leaking deadly tritium. In a recent report the US Academy of Sciences stated that there is no safe level of radiation exposure. Every exposure to radiation increases the risk of cancer, birth defects, and other disease. Government officials have failed to take action to address major safety concerns at existing power plants. They have ignored calls to remedy the deficiencies in our nation's nuclear emergency response plans, and they continue to offer billions of dollars in loan guarantees to the nuclear power industry to build new reactors.

      In 1995, the Department of Energy said it would take 50 years and $37 billion to clean up Rocky Flats. After awarding a $3.5 billion contract to Kaiser-Hill to clean up the site, it is now the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge, except for the 1,300 acre portion of the site so drenched in plutonium that state officials say it is not fit for human activity. It is not a place that I would recommend visiting. In 1991, when Congress approved closing Fernald, an Ohio uranium processing facility, federal scientists said that no one could safely live there and that the site would have to be closely monitored forever. This recognizes the fact that most radionuclides are a threat to human health and remain dangerous for thousands of years.

      It is encouraging to read that a poll released around March 9 by the Civil Society Institute found that 77 percent of Americans polled favor using clean renewable energy sources such as wind and solar as well as increased energy efficiency rather than more nuclear power in the United States. With the one year anniversary of the ongoing Fukushima disaster fresh in our minds, let us do our best to join the movement for a nuclear-free, carbon-free energy future!

      One important action to take now is to urge your representative (mine is Representative Janice Hahn) to support the Smarter Approach to Nuclear Expenditures, the SANE Act. ON February 9th Representative Markey (D-MA) introduced this bill that would halt plans to build new nuclear bomb factories, would cancel plans for new nuclear bombers and new nuclear missile systems, and would save up to $117 billion over the next ten years. Tell Congressmember Hahn to support HR 3974 which would cut billions from proposed wasteful and dangerous nuclear weapons programs!

Representative Janice Hahn
Rayburn HOB; Room 2400
Independence Ave and 1st St. SW
Washington. D.C., 20515-0536
Office: 202-225-8220
Local: 310-831-1799

*Guest blogger Lillian Light is an environmental activist and writer, a retired high school chemistry teacher who lives in southern California.

19 March 2012: Questioning the Vote

It was most gratifying today to find two articles headlining OEN questioning the value of the vote in this country today. What good is it? Does protest accomplish more? Another article lists the accomplishments of Occupy in honor of its six-month anniversary.

     In my forthcoming book Grassroots, Geeks, Pros, and Pols: How the People Lost and Won, 2000-2008,, I quote a youth who asserts that the best democracy combines protest with voting.

     Maybe he's right.

     Let's think this through.

     Self-criticism is a trademark of this country, and both articles feel free to criticize it. Another article I read discusses events in Zuccotti Park last night that scream "Police State!" Brutality was rampant, even against a protestor in the midst of a seizure. Later this week I am attending a program on the success of nonviolent policing in other parts of the world. I will report on that and hope that we can import that form of discipline here, if and when it is needed.

     I do not know how many elections in U.S. history were not a choice between the lesser of two evils. But we have elected some great presidents, though none of them was perfect.

     One beloved president put us to work on the infrastructure during the Great Depression and gave us social security. Another despised one gave us the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, Medicare, and Medicaid. Granted, the citizenry in this country do not enjoy the benefits of many other countries, including free health care, family leave, a mandatory summer vacation lasting four weeks in August, and so on.

     The United States rests on unstable ground. We slaughtered Native Americans (are "illegal aliens" simply coming back to land that was theirs?) and enslaved others--both of which were legal while Thomas Jefferson drafted a Declaration of Independence that called Native Americans savages, and soon after the ragtag, working-class militia won our independence, the glorified founding fathers drafted the Constitution.

     Few people could vote once the Constitution became law: one had to own property and be free and white. Ben Franklin joked that a man with a jackass could vote while without one he couldn’t. Thomas Paine lauded the vote as the lifeline of democracy, though.

     Gradually the privilege spread to unpropertied white men, but the arc did not always bend toward justice. Emancipated blacks were granted the vote until Jim Crow took it away--and 150 years later he still curses our society, though we are fighting back. After martyrdom and violence, women won the right to vote, something dismissed as ridiculous in the days after the Revolution.

     It is easy to fault the system and certainly correct. It is also easy for the system to fault us or worse, but ultimately who is to blame? I wonder if it is us.

     Have we consistently done the hard work that is also the lifeblood of democracy, according to Thomas Jefferson among others? Occupy stands out so much because it is such a novelty. We should have occupied constantly. What would have happened?

     We occupied the tyranny of Britain and won. In the midst of a bloody war, slavery was abolished.

     Society largely tends toward a division between the haves and the have-nots. Dare I suggest that every person among the 99 percent with free time and sufficient amenities of life should be out on the streets with Occupy? How many would that add in this society composed of the 99 percent versus the one percent?

     If all those who could joined the mostly have-nots who comprise Occupy, I believe that far more positive change would be accomplished--or would Obama become an Assad or let America be America, perhaps for the first time?

     How much would such a revolution accomplish?

     But, to get back to the vote, which in my book I assume to be the bottom line of democracy, those who discard that right will guarantee that the worse of two evils will always win, because at this point the left wing is alienated from the system even more than the Tea Party, which retains allegiance to the Republican Party.

     Conscientious activists fight constantly to clean up our deeply flawed electoral system. As it tends toward transparent paper voting, voter i.d. laws are becoming stricter and more widespread--half the country has some form of voter i.d. legislation.

     And beyond that, in case we the people manage to push it back, as the Department of Justice is attempting in two states, South Carolina successfully so far, there is the push toward Internet voting, a guaranteed 100 percent hackable option. So Plan C, or whatever ordinal is operative, is rearing its ugly head at the horizon.

     WE HAVE TO FIGHT. WE CAN’T STOP FIGHTING. That is our destiny as much as persecution has been for the Jews throughout history.

     As I have said so many times, not like a broken record but perhaps like an electronic printer gone berserk, it all boils down to human nature, a constant battle between the bad and the good.

     In Grassroots, Geeks, Pros, and Pols, I write that the day computerized voting becomes trustworthy, including Internet voting, and comes into consistent and ubiquitous use, we will have evolved higher on the arc of justice than we have ever been.

     It's human nature, constantly in flux. We are in God's jar that is filled with water, with sand firmly planted on the bottom--us. But if God turns the jar upside down, we will be on top, the 99 percent. How will we behave then?

(c)

19 March 2012: Waxman: Clean Energy Solution to Federal Deficit

Beware of the policymaker with all the answers. S/he won't fly given the makeup of the present Congress. Particularly on environmental issues. Particularly when s/he is up against deniers who want to cut taxes and entitlements for the sake of the deficit.

     Indeed, increasing the debt limit is a looming issue, said Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) today at the Center for American Progress (CAP) in Washington, DC. Supporting him was a Republican Congressman, currently retired but always supportive on cleaning up the environment, Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD).

     Neither dignitary had all of the answers. But they, along with Congressman Edward J. Markey (D-MA) and former Congressman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) are working on legislation to address two exigent issues: the behemoth and growing deficit and climate change.

     Solutions to the deficit crisis championed by Republicans include lowering taxes on the rich and drawing on entitlement funds. Waxman and Markey have a new idea: reduce the deficit while addressing climate change, despite the deniers.

     Two previous efforts to solve the budget problems failed--a fiscal bargain and then supercommittee discussions.

     Waxman and Markey propose, in lieu of energy credits for environmentally friendly industries, charging a price for those industries that emit carbon into the atmosphere. This policy would move us from dependence on carbon fuels, challenging policymakers and other stakeholders to move this country toward clean energy, to catch up with China's rapid growth in this area (with the world's greatest quantity of solar panels) and with Europe, which already has a tax ons carbon consumption.

     Said Carol Browner, moderator and Distinguished Senior Fellow for the CAP Action Fund, the challenge to Waxman and Markey is to figure out how to prioritize carbon pollution among all of Congress and not just Democrats and Markey and those contributing generously to their efforts. A most effective target for such efforts, the one to get through to, is Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), chairman of the House Budget Committee. Waxman, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, does not believe in raising taxes on corporations, whom he calls the country's job creators, and whose investments in the economy he wishes to encourage.

     What is not accomplished today will be more expensive later and impossible after that, he said, specifying the dramatic increase in ocean acidification, coastline reduction, and melting ice sheets, which have produced waters eight times the volume of Lake Erie.

     Reduced carbon emissions also subtract other air pollutants and reduce health problems, continued Waxman. The more we study, the more bad news becomes evident from continued abuse of the environment.

     Browner recalled how productive elimination of lead from gasoline was. The ozone-layer conversation comes up again and again without effective results. We must pay more attention to science, which constantly generates new knowledge on the relevant issues. With her robust background as an EPA administrator, she advocated more communication between that agency and scientists. She praised the rapport in Washington, DC, between scientists and policy makers. People in this country must understand the importance of science, she said.

     Gilchrest answered a question I was going to ask when this former teacher encouraged fostering a more inquiring mindset among young students. I was going to express worry about finding out recently that the millennial generation is far less concerned with environmental exigencies than boomers and their closer successors--far less concerned than us older folks that, for instance, global warming in the preceding century, generated by industry, exceeds that generated in the preceding twenty thousand years.

     The former Congressman continued that we cannot afford not to raise the price on carbon emissions; the oil supply will decrease largely in this century, despite, or because of the high demand by more than one billion people in India and China; here our dependence on foreign oil has decrease from 60 percent to 40 percent and we are moving to decrease our consumption of gasoline by driving less often. Waxman would add a two-cent increase in the price per gallon of gasoline.

     By contrast, the Republican chorus "Drill, baby, drill" persists, though more domestically generated oil will not lower its price, which is determined by the world economy rather than more locally. Even Canada's oil surplus doesn't lower the price of its gasoline.

     Said Waxman, alternative fuels and electric cars will go far in the direction of cleaning up our environment. The Congressman was optimistic about the possibility of safe fracking and strongly recommended the use of natural gas, with its reduced amount of carbon emissions, to fuel our electricity and therefore benefit the economy.

     Strongly supporting more intensive support of energy alternatives by President Obama, Gilchrest noted that innovation and ingenuity are natural to the human condition, citing as an example the most influential administration of JFK. The young president strongly advocated physical fitness as a goal of every American and his promise to put a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s did come about. Leadership and charisma and go a long way toward accomplishing important goals.

     Charging for carbon emissions will benefit the economy, the people, and the deficit, concluded Waxman. There will be no need to cut defense spending, public programs, or taxes, added Gilchrest.

     Audience questions emphasized the importance of cooperative action among different countries rather than solely domestic policymaking. Waxman recommended, instead of punishing China and India for their massive oil consumption, setting an example by improving our own relevant habits.

     Another strong point was the question how the deniers can possibly allow their children's futures to collide with environmental deterioration. Faulting ignorance, Gilchrest quoted Ben Franklin that ignorance and democracy are incompatible. [John Adams emphasized the importance of an informed public.]

     Obama must refer to this issue during his campaign and in particular the proven relationship between reduction of both the national debt and atmospheric pollution. Waxman recalled how, during the 2008 presidential election, Obama and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) agreed that a holocaust will result if climate change is ignored and/or denied.

     Browner added that in the past Democrats and Republicans agreed on the importance of addressing environmental issues, including climate change. Waxman cited President Richard Nixon, who set up the EPA, and President Theodore Roosevelt's concern for the environment, among others. We must get beyond denial, he said, and emphasized that environmental concerns are never on the agenda when deficit reduction is the issue.

     After the event, the Congressmen were solicitous enough to take more questions. I asked Congressman Waxman exactly how safe fracking was possible. "Science?" I suggested. He agreed.

(c)

13 March 2012: Deradicalizing Islamist Extremists

A project of eliminating terrorism as a language of death on this planet, whether at the behavioral or behavioral and ideological level(s), seems quixotic at best. We have all lived in fear of terrorism, especially since 9/11, and various precautions have invaded and seem to have permanently altered our lifestyles.

     Today's subject at the Rumi Forum for Interfaith Dialogue and Intercultural Understanding, in Washington, DC, encompassed Islamist terrorists, as much a source of chagrin and dread among their moderate coreligionists as the rest of us. Dr. Angel M. Rabasa, a senior political scientist at the Rand Corporation, a prolific author and expert who has studied terrorism for years, addressed a packed room, including many who had never been to the forum before (myself among them).

     Distilling a 250-page publication into a twenty-seven-screen Powerpoint presentation printed onto handouts, Rabasa's main focus was disabusing those already incarcerated for terrorist acts, of the ideology that underlies such atrocities. Studies were conducted in South and Southeast Asia as well as Saudi Arabia. The real pioneer of such deprogramming turned out to be Yemen, but that country lacked the resources to accomplish much, and the torch passed to the wealthy lands of Saudi Arabia and Singapore--Saudi Arabia having been indifferent until it was attacked by terrorists in 2003. To this day they have the most elaborate programs.

     In that the kingdom is dominated by Wahabi Islam, a most extreme version of the faith, Saudi proactivism is remarkable but real, said Rabasa, though statistics were not available; He said that the country claims an 85 percent success rate, and that Indonesia, another locus of various versions of Wahabi, which spread there from Saudi Arabia, has reported approximately sixty success stories. The total number of terrorists in the preceding decade was estimated at 300 million, the approximate population of the United States.

     There are two forms of eliminating terrorist violence: disengagement, which eliminates the behavior but not the ideology, and deradicalization, which eliminates both. Clearly the first is easier to accomplish than the second, but is also more easily abandoned--for example, Rabasa, cited those prisoners released from Guantanamo who resumed terrorist activities once they returned home.

     Deradicalization can occur at the individual or collective level. An individual might experience trauma from a particular incident of violence and break away from his peers. To sustain this productive alienation, s/he (but mostly men between the ages of fifteen and thirty) must find a new peer group and be equipped to acquire other amenities enjoyed by mainstream society, including a job, a home, and a family, Rabasa insisted, all of which should protect him from recidivism.

     An entire group or organization can also be deradicalized, he continued, citing the Egyptian groups al-Islamiya and Islamic Jihad, as well as others in Libya.

     The bottom line of deradicalization is, however, content in the Qur'an and hadith (words spoken by the prophet Muhammad), sacred texts that prove that violence is not the answer according to this religion of submission and peace.

     In Indonesia prisoners are disabused of the assumption that terrorism is a solution by ex-terrorists rather than imams, who play this role elsewhere.

     Collective deradicalization is more effective than at the individual level, said Rabasa. Respected leaders initiate the transition. The process must vary according to the culture of the individual or group, and local legal systems also impact what can and cannot be accomplished.

     Rehabilitation, that is, abandonment of terrorist ideology, is most successful in areas where the movement is losing ground. The capsulized presentation ended with some optimism. Terrorism is receding in some areas, including critical locations in the Middle East, and increasing in others. Al Qaeda is losing ideological ground. With such diminution, disillusioned members desert the group.

     In Europe, due to aggressive campaigns against terrorism and radicalization, there have been no successful attacks since 2005.

(c)

8 March 2012: International Women's Day, for the 111th Time: Closing the Gender Gap

In honor of International Women's Day, which is today, the Center for American Progress (CAP) held a panel discussion among four distinguished leaders focused on gender and the world of work: Rikke Lind, Norwegian Deputy Minister from the Ministry of Trade and Industry; Amy Dacey, Executive Director of EMILY's List; and Maria Peña, Senior Director of Entrepreneurship and Economic Development, Vital Voices; and moderator Sabina Dewan, Director of Globalization and International Employment, also at CAP.

     The event was introduced by Neera Tanden, President of CAP.

     Even today, the list of underused resources around the world is extensive--some beneficial and others best left where they are. But most will agree that a fairer representation of the fair sex in the workforce will contribute greatly to our culture and quality of life.

     Significantly, the audience today consisted largely of women, and the panel were all women. There is much work to be done, said Tanden, before workplaces reflect the actual proportion of men and women in the world. Although 40 percent of American women are wage earners, a tiny 18 percent are in top leadership positions. Addressing issues relevant to childcare and family leave will go a long way toward balancing this proportion also.

     Her opening remarks were followed by a Powerpoint presentation by Rikke Lind, who said that Clara Zetkin, a German Marxist, activist, and champion of women's rights, first organized this day to honor women in 1911. She would be amazed at the progress women have made since then, never without a fight. Norway's first and only woman prime minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland, held office between 1981 and 1996; women also comprised eight out of her eighteen ministers, which Lind called a most women-dominated government.

     Today in Norway 70 percent of women work and 60 percent of university students are women; the welfare state is growing, and the other half of the population must be allowed to achieve to their fullest capabilities. Warren Buffett said that he had an easier time succeeding because he was competing against only half of the population.

     In Norway also there has been yearlong family leave for ten years; men are allowed twelve weeks; the result has been more productivity, growth, and equality at a cost of 3 percent of the GDP, money well spent. With such a superb rate of women working, the fertility rate has also increased sharply. But the fight continues, said Lind. There is no country in the world with true gender equality. The glass ceiling remains.

     In France, 30 percent of high-level government positions are reserved for women by Parlement, a quota system that works well.

     But in Norway gender wage gaps persist; most women give birth to two to three children, and 30 percent of all businesses are run by women entrepreneurs, a number that should increase.

     International Women's Day celebrates human rights and the need for progress, a correct balance between raising children and getting the right job.

*****

A panel discussion followed, and one of the first points made was that one focus area of the government is closing the wage gap between men and women, where more research is needed, as well as dialogue with industries and unions.

     Said Amy Dacey, more women are needed in political office; a record number of women are running for Congress this year. The Democrats have twenty-five seats to regain in Congress, and women are being encouraged to fill them.

     The one million members of Emily's List help women candidates throughout their campaigns after first persuading them to run and then encouraging them as they move forward. More women in political office will encourage more to run for it; women tend to need more prodding than do men to enter politics and seek office.

     Lind said that in Norway there is no equivalent to Emily's List per se, but many women's organizations at the level of parliament and all branches of the government.

     Maria Peña said that when financially empowered, women tend to invest to improve social conditions, and this in turn improves the economy. Men tend to buy things for themselves.

     According to a UN National Labor Organization study, most women are still not paid for their work.

     In a 2006 report on economic drivers, the single biggest was the introduction of women into the workplace. Vital Voices has invested much to encourage women in entrepreneurship. Women tend to lean on men for business decisions. Role models are scarce; 53 percent of entry-level positions are taken by women, but at the other end of the ladder their presence is far less evident.

     A McKinsey study reported that 70 percent of women felt equal to men, while 70 percent of men felt superior to women, and women rate themselves lower than men, though they're urged to take on more responsibility. More than mentoring is needed; according to a Harvard study, there are more women than men mentors, but men get more out of the experience in terms of money and career advancement.

     Networking is also important for women's advancement. Women must support each other, said Lind. Sabina Dewan explained that the quota system so successful overseas is incompatible with U.S. values.

     In quota systems, the emphasis is on equality of opportunity; the more women present on corporate boards, the more the economy gains. Women are 40 percent as likely to get raises on the job as are men. The mindset must shift.

*****

During the Q&A period, some of the points made were that even in Europe women receive fewer wage raises than do men, and they spend twice as much time on household chores than do men, said Lind. Norway still has much to learn from this country. It is not easy to raise male children to have an egalitarian view of the opposite sex. Fathers must foster their daughters' success as well as that of their sons.

     Part of the 52 percent of Norwegian women in the workforce are still in traditional women's jobs including nursing and social work. In engineering departments a quota is maintained for women.

     Dewan said that although the educational gap in East Asia is closing, women choose the traditional gender-marked professions. Said Dacey, women are more apt to seek political positions later in life than do men; they must be reached sooner. Peña said that all in the workforce must be encouraged to take nontraditional work; men must be encouraged to work as nurses as surely as women to become engineers.

     Women-dominated businesses are patronized by only one percent of industries. More men are needed in these settings and more financial support is needed to encourage women to become entrepreneurs.

     Sabina Dewan, in her closing statement, noted that Norway spends a lot on its more open society--how can this Scandinavian exemplar afford it? But, more important, how can it not afford such a system?

(c)

Senate Resolution 380: Advise Your Senator Not to Consent

The Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) has issued an urgent plea for all Americans to contact their senators urging them to vote against Senate Resolution 380, the Graham-Casey-Lieberman Resolution, which recommends that the U.S. attack Iran once it reaches "nuclear capability."

     Wrote the FCNL: "[The resolution] undermines diplomacy. As tensions between the U.S. and Iran escalate, Congress should be supporting the vigorous pursuit of all diplomatic options available to resolve the crisis and avert a war. Instead, S. Res. 380 puts U.S. negotiators under intense political pressure, undercutting their ability to reach a diplomatic solution, which heightens the potential of war."

     Those who join FCNL in opposition to the resolution include Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell; Colin Kahl, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East; and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. For other high-profile opponents of this destructive document, see this link.

     With the vote scheduled to take place as early as next week, thousands will lobby for it and the pressure against it must spread as widely as possible as quickly as possible.

     Sponsored by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and initially offered to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, chaired by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), on February 16, the resolution rules out diplomacy as well as containment once Iraq becomes nuclear-armed.

     War is the answer, directly challenging FCNL's motto "War is not the answer."

     Once the resolution is passed in the Senate, further diplomatic communications with Iran will become virtually impossible. There are forty-four co-sponsors, including two of the three sponsors who initiated this ill-advised, ill-fated initiative.

     It is disappointing that Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), author of the legislation that would create a tax minimum of 30 percent for millionaire Americans, also endorses the resolution. Eighteen Democrats, twenty-six Republicans, and one Independent have officialized their support.

     This figure leaves fifty-five senators not yet committed either way.

     FCNL offers one phone number that will reach all senators, 1-855-NO WAR.

     For more detailed information about this initiative, go to this link.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse on His "Paying a Fair Share" Act

On February 1 of this year, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) submitted a new bill to his colleagues, the "Paying a Fair Share" Act, which would end the era of big bosses paying a smaller percentage of their annual incomes to the IRA than do their employees. The act is known informally as the "Buffett Rule" tax bill.

     Today the Senator participated in a conversation about this act as well as in general building an economy that is fair to all, at the Center for American Progress. Others speaking with him included Jason Furman, Deputy Director of the National Economic Council; Michael Ettlinger, Vice President for Economic Policy, Center for American Progress Action Fund; and moderator Tom Perriello, President and CEO, Center for American Progress Action fund.

     Senator Whitehouse began by denying that he is an economist, but that many see the issue of income equality as political as well as economic. The Buffett Rule, recently publicized and already a household word, makes sense in the context of the present tax code, weighted so heavily toward big bosses rather than lower-level workers.

     We are supposed to be providing examples to the rest of the world rather than caving in to special interests, he said.

     Tom Perriello said that when he was in England, the people there saw the U.S. economy as concentrated on wealth, with soft- and hard-power implications overseas.

     Jason Furman noted that where fairness and growth are present, the situation is win-win. Having worked on all four of the Obama budgets, with the most recent one the most difficult, he pinpointed the underlying deficit as a major consideration.

     The Buffett Rule is a no-brainer rather than a tough choice, he continued. What is needed from wealthy citizens earning more than $1 million a year are fewer itemizations on tax returns and an increase in the capital gains tax. The four hundred citizens who paid the highest taxes in the country paid at a rate of 15 percent, Furman specified later to an audience questioner.

     Fifty years ago, wealthy people fell into the 50 percent tax bracket, which no longer exists, while the middle class paid a rate of 15 to 17 percent. At that same time, the economy here flourished, with high productivity its hallmark.

     Since then, specifically the Reagan-era onset of trickle-down economics, income inequality has grown for decades.

     Michael Ettlinger reiterated the point about the fall of the middle class as income inequality increased. The regressive income tax is a tried and failed method; the Bush tax cuts were built on unsustainable debt, which raised the deficit astronomically.

     The bottom line of Whitehouse's new bill is simple: Add another line to tax forms requiring all those with an income in excess of $1 million to pay 30 percent of it in taxes, period. They can also calculate their taxes according to traditional methods, including loopholes and deductions, compare the totals, and then pay the larger one of the two.

     Said Whitehouse, economic trends between 1960 and the present and the 1990s compared with the 2000s prove that his bill will be effective. align="left">     Michael Ettlinger made the point that it is a bad idea to raise taxes during a recession. Nor is this the time for spending cuts, which adversely affect economic growth and deficit reduction.

     We need investments that will grow the economy.

     Tom Perriello said that the Whitehouse bill has garnered a great deal of support from Independents. Whitehouse added that while Republicans on Capitol Hill grumble and complain, those in his home state of Rhode Island support his bill; the public sees them as "slam-dunk common sense."

     This call for tax fairness, the senator acknowledged, was brought out by President Obama in his State of the Union address, for which he was most grateful.

     The American public must be heard; otherwise changes will be impossible.

     Said Jason Furman, Reagan's tax ceiling of 28 percent was far fairer than what we have today. Whitehouse added that he had even seen a video of Reagan endorsing a policy that resembled the Buffett Rule.

     And what of corporate taxes? asked Perriello.

     Furman answered that in the realm of business tax reform, all taxes for all units concerned, even those that call themselves corporations, should be cut. There is also a proposal for a minimum tax on corporations' foreign earnings.

     During the Q&A period, the senator cited two ways in which to pass his legislation. His "Jericho strategy" requires several rounds of negotiation; that is, repeated tries to get closer and closer to his goals. The other strategy is to make this legislation part of a bigger act, which could be discussed before November, when the lame duck session in Congress begins.

     Further insights were gained through audience questions, including 1) The Grover Norquist principle that the Bush tax cuts are eternal will have to cave in the face of such dire public need. 2) Though taxes are higher in Europe, and the rates less progressive, there is less income inequality in the Mother Continent. 3) A fairer tax system will give people confidence and a more positive attitude toward the economy; our education system and infrastructure will improve. 4) There will be a large tax reform at some point; the present narrative is sharpening the debate. 5) The rich wouldn't lose all tax benefits, but must pay an income tax equaling at least 30 percent of all earnings. 6) Corporations aren't people; jobs must stay here; the system must promote income equality; our competitiveness on the world stage must continue--these measures will benefit all economic classes.

     Concluded Senator Whitehouse, the ruling that corporations are equal to people marks one of the most grievous errors ever made by the U.S. Supreme Court. He saluted Tom Perriello for his work on climate change, a brave move that might have added a chapter about him to the book Profiles in Courage, were President Kennedy still alive.

     The senator said he thought that the Republicans would yield to the necessity of his legislation and other ideas, just as they yielded to the extension of the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance for the duration of this year.

(c)

Education is key to peace in the Holy Land, affirmed some of the distinguished members of the Council of Religious Institutions of the Holy Land (CRIHL) at the event "Preventing Incitement and Promoting Peace," held this afternoon at the U.S. Institute for Peace (USIP).

     Here in DC to meet with Vice President Joe Biden, the ten members of the council, which is composed of the most senior religious officials of the Holy Land, had come mainly from Israel, Palestine, and Jordan, but also from Norway and Connecticut (Yale University).

     Four members were the speakers; the others joined the panel to field questions from moderator David Smock, Senior Vice President at USIP, and then from the audience.

     Speakers included Canon Trond Bakkevig, founder of CRIHL and pastor of the Church of Norway; Mahmoud Habbash, Palestinian Minister of Waqf and Religious Affairs; Rabbi Yona Metzger, Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel; and Patriarch Fouad Twal, Latin Patriarch of Israel/Palestine and Jordan.

     CRIHL's bottom line is working for peace from the top down, by setting examples for the grassroots to follow. The group formed in 2005 after first convening in 2002 in Alexandria, Egypt, invited by then Archbishop of Canterbury and hosted by the Grand Imam of Al Azhar. There a joint declaration was issued binding the participants to work toward peace and abhor religion-based violence--specifically, to keep channels of communication open, work closely with their political counterparts, and to engage with local and international communities to work toward peace.

     Canon Bakkevig, first to speak affirmed that peace is a necessity that is possible to achieve, a matter of willingness and ability. Since CRIHL was formed and even though it has met regularly, violence in the name of religion and territoriality has flourished in the Holy Land off and on. Despite this, these clergymen perpetrate the themes that the land is holy and Jerusalem especially holy as its center; the three narratives should be respected; and the status of the holy sites should not be changed.

     Further, derogatory statements about any of the three religions should not be tolerated; desecration of holy sites should be forbidden and, perhaps most important, the problem of images of the "other" perpetrated in schoolbooks must be addressed, an effort led by Professor Bruce Wexler of Yale University.

     The results of Wexler's project are hoped to eliminate hateful stereotypes found in schoolbooks and to replace these with objective identifications to promote peace and harmonious coexistence. Bakkevig later expressed this goal as three activities: "education, education, and education."

     All four clerics expressed concern for the future, for teaching younger religious leaders to have confidence in each other, and to promote peace in the Holy Land.

     Mahmoud Habbash, next to speak, said that peace in the Holy Land is a tough issue requiring open hearts and minds. Any achievement in this direction, however small, is of vital importance.

     Equal rights for all is a paramount principle, as is comprehensive justice. Once these goals are achieved, said Habbash, the whole world will have peace, security, and stability, all of which will be sustainable.

     But words must translate into action, he emphasized, requiring concessions on both sides, Palestinian and Israeli--both must benefit and neither be deprived. Peace can't be complete until you wish the same for your brother as you wish for yourself. Muslims, Christians, and Jews must look toward their common interests. Palestinians have been oppressed, suppressed, humiliated, and enslaved; continuation of murders on both sides is an enemy of peace, said Habbash.

     But peace can't exist for one side at the expense of the other; that's the logic of the jungle, where creatures kill, rather than love, to survive.

     Habbash's parents ended up in refugee camps after 1948. Despite all their subsequent sufferings, we must move forward. We must make some concessions but not give up everything.

     He said that his grandmother wept once when she saw a funeral where an Israeli mother was burying her child and weeping.

     "Don't kill my sons and ask me to forgive you," said Habbash.

     We also work for peace and fight the drive toward violence and hatred.

     We accept the two-state solution, with 1967 borders restored, which amounts to 20 percent of the land held by the Palestinians before 1948, a painful price but worth the peace that is hoped to follow.

     There are three possibilities for both sides, he said: first, the two-state solution, where Jerusalem serves as capital of both, open to both; if Israel rejects this, there is the one-state solution, and the name Israel can be kept, the patriarch who would be well pleased to find peace among his warring offspring.

     The third option, maintaining the uneasy and explosive status quo, means death, Habbash told us. "Religion teaches the cultivation of life, not death." [Habbash spoke Arabic, so the words quoted are those of a translator.]

     Rabbi Metzger, next to speak, called Judaism the first religion in the world, which has always used the greeting "shalom," "peace." In the three prayers of each day, Jews pray for peace.

     He praised the group's meeting with the vice president and then, turning to the study of schoolbooks read by children in the Holy Land, he lamented the lionizing of suicide bombers. If children are inculcated with this principle, how can there be peace? How can there be peace when, in the south of Israel, the people must stay in shelters because of constant bombing. This has gone on for a year, but patience is wearing thin. Education must change and all children must learn the Golden Rule.

     As a positive example, Metzger spoke of the harmonious coexistence of Jews and Arabs in Haifa, which the Arabs never left, fully 20 percent of the population.

     He himself, when a mosque was bombed, was the first person to arrive to protest the desecration, guarded conscientiously by Palestinian police. Jews can well relate to this trauma, with their collective recollection of the infamous Krystallnacht in Austria prior to World War II, when all of the synagogues in Vienna were destroyed. Metzger nonetheless was not allowed into the newly destroyed mosque, told that it was already in the process of repair.

     He said that the Israeli police are still looking for the culprit, who may after all not even be Jewish.

     In Singapore, he said, newspaper headlines on 9/11 reported Mossad as the culprit, but how can this be when the United States is our mother? he asked. The press isn't always right.

     He hopes and dreams for a "United Nations" of international clergy, to include countries that are diplomatically out of the fold. We have a language of faith, love, peace, justice, and more, he said.

     Changing schoolbooks to an objective narrative will erase hatred. We must liquidate killing in the name of religion. Peaceful coexistence will make our forefathers happy.

     Patriarch Twal spoke next, affirming that the word "peace" must be used more often in the Holy Land. Peace requires justice and forgiveness.

     It's not a question of who is right and who is wrong. We need sacrifice and compromise. Our coexistence proves that peace is possible. We can create a culture of peace, dialogue, and openness.

     Through education we can create cultures in which our children will study together and accept each other. Peace is a gift of God. It means faith, respect, sacrifice, love, and more. There is power in prayer.

     We must pray more and give more; God said that he wanted his children together in the Holy Land. Charity is a language we can all understand. Peace is possible if we all do what we need to do. Calvary is close to the church of resurrection and hope.

     We must all come to Jerusalem as pilgrims to pray for the peace that we need, which must be for all.

     Christians number a meager 2 percent in Israel and 3 to 4 percent in Jordan, the patriarch said. We must all believe in the First Commandment: love your neighbor, even your enemy. Be in touch with all peoples. Then go back and tell all those you know of your experiences.

     We need your pilgrimage. Don't leave us alone.

*****

David Smock asked all ten panelists why they were starting from the top instead of the bottom.

     Bishop Munib Younan, of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Jordan and the Holy Land since 1998, said that there is more interfaith cooperation among the grassroots than the "higher-ups."

     Religion must become prophetic and teach them to see God in the enemy, which is the road toward reconciliation--respecting the human rights of all.

     Education is the only transformative power. The core of religion must be loving God, neighbors, and the grassroots at any price.

     Canon Bakkevig added that no blame game is needed. Leaders are needed to courageously stretch out their hands to others and lead their own. They must teach self-criticism, stepping back three steps and asking oneself who he/she is.

     The council must create an atmosphere in which people can see themselves through the eyes of others.

     Oded Wiener, Director General of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel since 2001, analyzed the Hebrew word for "responsibility" in terms of the letters that spell it. What is my responsibility, my aim? How do I treat those around me? Can I obtain the same objectives that my enemy has, accept the other? In the future education will connect us to each other. We must set a personal example.

     Dr. Bruce Wexler, a professor emeritus and senior research scientist in psychiatry at Yale University, said that he explained to Joe Biden their mission, to change attitudes, to examine the depiction of others in schoolbooks. The project consists of 50 percent Israelis and the other 50 percent, Palestinians, reviewing each other's schoolbooks and developing new methods.

     Study results will be reported to CRIHL in May of this year, with as many as three thousand entries in their database.

     Two audience questions were then taken.

     First, an Arab man asked how we can spread the cultivation of peace among peoples. When a Muslim leaves his mosque and sees Israeli barricades, he realizes that he can't get to any mosque in Jerusalem. We need consistency between words and action.

     First to answer was Rabbi Daniel Sperber, professor of Talmud at Bar-Ilan University.

     God makes peace in the heavens, he said. His angels are of fire and water, but he must make them work together, just like the hailstones among the plagues he sent to biblical Egypt, which were also composed of fire and water. CRIHL works with fire and water despite their differences. This describes the road we must take toward peace.

     Susan Hayward of the USIP Religion and Peacemaking Center asked the second question, noting that all of the panelists were men and that women have different priorities than men. Several respondents admitted that they didn't know but that the council would include women in future sessions and that younger religious leadership would include women.

     Said Rabbi Metzger, there are two signs that the Jews are the Chosen People: first, that they constituted a large percentage of the non-Aryans put to death by the Nazis during World War II. The second sign is that Jews must be an example for other nations to follow. Israeli hospitals treat Arabs from Gaza as well as other Israelis. We are equal to others but expect more from ourselves.

*****

As the event ended and I was walking out, an old man called out to the first audience questioner, "Hey, Arab."

     The other man, also old and gnarled, gave him a friendly look.

     "It's not so easy to be one of the chosen people."

     The Arab nodded. The two looked alike, both short and round-shouldered with prominent noses.

     "The problem is religious extremism," they told each other, each using different words but saying the same thing.

(c)

26 February 2012: Lillian Light,* Plastic Bag Ban

I am very proud that my city, Manhattan Beach, is a leader in the movement to ban plastic bags! The Manhattan Beach City Council approved this ban in July of 2008. A month later the ban was challenged by the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, and an LA County Superior Court Judge ruled that the city had to conduct an EIR before the ban could be implemented. On appeal, the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled in the city's favor saying that its ordinance would have no significant environmental effect.

      The city's plastic bag ban was implemented on Saturday, January 14th and requires that all restaurants, food vendors, grocery stores, and pharmacies distribute only recyclable paper bags or reusable bags to customers. Enforcement will not begin until April 14, giving the businesses a grace period to phase out the offending bags. Since last year's ruling, Laguna Beach and Calabasas have followed Manhattan Beach's lead. San Francisco was the first city in the United States to institute such a ban in 2007. Palo Alto and Malibu followed. Los Angeles and Santa Monica are considering taking this action as well.

      Why is it so important to get these polluting bags out of the waste stream? It is estimated that the United States goes through 100 billion plastic bags a year, which take an estimated 12 million barrels of oil to produce, and which last almost forever. In Los Angeles County an estimated 6 billion bags are used, only 5% of them are recycled, and it costs 17 cents to recycle each bag. It costs more to recycle a bag than to produce a new one. Lisa Foster of 1bagata time, which sells reusable bags to Ralph's and Ace Hardware, was quoted as saying that people need to know that the manufacture of 14 bags requires enough petroleum to drive a car one mile.

      Most plastic bags go into our lakes and rivers, and then end up in the ocean where they do not biodegrade like other debris. They photo-degrade, a process in which they are broken down by sunlight into smaller and smaller pieces, eventually becoming individual particles of plastic that are too tough for living animals to digest. They enter the food chain with catastrophic effects on wildlife. Fish, birds, whales, dolphins, seals, and turtles die when they mistake these particles for food. It is estimated that 200 different species of sea life have died because they ingested these petro-polymers.

      Every piece of plastic that has made it into the Pacific Ocean has been breaking down and accumulating in an area the size of Africa, called the North Pacific Central gyre or the great Pacific Garbage Patch. Research has documented six pounds of plastic for every pound of plankton in this area. Some beaches in Hawaii get coated with blue green plastic sand, along with staggering amounts of larger plastic debris. Ten percent of the debris washed up on the U S coastline is plastic.

      As these ubiquitous plastic fragments float around, they accumulate the poisons that are not water soluble and that are manufactured for various purposes. Plastic polymers are sponges for oily toxics like DDT, PCBs and nonylphenols. Some of our worst pollutants are being ingested by jellyfish which are then eaten by fish. How long will the fish eaten by humans remain pesticide free?

      What can we do to reduce the huge quantity of plastic that is polluting our waterways and our oceans and endangering the health of so many living things? We can bring reusable bags with us whenever we go shopping. Do something drastic! Cut the Plastic!

     For more information about this issue go to www.algalita.org.

*Guest blogger Lillian Light is an environmental activist and writer, a retired high school chemistry teacher who lives in southern California. (photo above courtesy of Google)

24 February 2012: Apologies to Afghans Continue in Wake of Burning of Religious Materials

In an effort to stave off continuing violence in Afghanistan provoked by the improper burning of Qur'ans and other religious material by US soldiers at Bagram Airfield Base north of Kabul, a press conference was held in Washington DC's largest Muslim Center in Sterling, Virginia.

     The latest apologies were offered after those by NATO, President Obama, USAF General John Allen, and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta proved to be useless in deterring the extremist-infiltrated demonstrations spreading all over the beleaguered country, in the grips of war off and on since the Russian invasion thirty years ago.

     At ADAMS (All Dulles Area Muslim Society) Center, fifth-largest Muslim center in this country, with numerous branches in the DC Metro area, officials from the Pentagon and DoD added their apologies to the others right after Friday prayers, joined by Imam Mohamed Magid, executive director of the center, and Haris Tarin of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, who implored the Afghans to desist from violence, the wrong response to an unfortunate error.

     First to speak was Dr. Peter Lavoy, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asia and Pacific Security Affairs. He began by reminding all of the years-long cooperation between this country and the Afghans.

     The United States is determined to learn from our mistakes and fully investigate the incident, he said. It will never happen again. Lavoy expressed gratitude that the Afghan workers had brought the incident to light and promised that Secretary Panetta will personally handle the situation.

     Additional steps include, after a complete investigation, finding those responsible for the unwitting sacrilege and holding them accountable, and retraining US military on how to handle Muslim religious materials, said Lavoy.

     He thanked Imam Magid and the entire Muslim American community for fostering policies of tolerance and communication and reminded those present of the many Muslim Americans serving in the US military along with adherents to a variety of other religions.

     After reiterating his apologies, Lavoy yielded the podium to a Lieutenant Colonel and army chaplain, also a Muslim who has served in this capacity for eighteen years, who asked how the Prophet Muhammad would have responded to the violence being exhibited this week, as misguided adherents allow their emotions to prevail, or would he have seen the event as an opportunity for all to stand shoulder to shoulder to make the world a more peaceful place?

     A spark can set a dry forest on fire, but one that is moist and full of life will absorb it effortlessly, the chaplain said. We Muslims must pray to Muhammad to cleanse our hearts and minds in preparation for ascending to a new and higher level.

     Among the first words spoken before Friday prayers had been a recollection of how Muhammad, the "Qur'an Walking," had ignored trash thrown at him.

     "May God almighty let us be an example for the world," the speaker continued.

More details: US troops found and collected Qur'ans used by former Muslim prisoners who were no longer incarcerated at Bagram. They found sacrilegious notes in the margin and it was decided that these were used as messages between prisoners. They had taken these along with other religious materials to a pit and set them aflame when an Afghan worker ran over and reached into the flames with his bare hands to rescue the sacred literature, defiled though it had been. Highly visible and violent, ongoing reactions followed, spreading from Bagram throughout the entire country; the livid gestures included burning American flags, and several US military members as well as Afghan civilians have been killed.

(c)

21 February 2012: Occupy DC: "We've Got a Broken System!"

I was warmly received by some cold people wearing at least two layers of clothing this morning at Freedom Plaza in Washington, DC.

     Yes, both encampments are still there--the one at McPherson Square persists and the two groups are trying to settle differences and work together better, but their main concern right now is surviving the DC winter, which seems mild to those with homes. I reminded them of "normal" winters here, but consolation was minimal. They were still cold. Thirty or forty strong souls are still at it, waiting for spring to come, which will add more people and allow for more activity.

     The rules have become oppressive: no sleeping allowed, all personal possessions must be worn on the person, no cooking, no blankets, and so on. They need donations of food, medicine, tents, winter outerwear, money, and places to sleep, wash their clothing and themselves, and so on. They have received a rating of 100 percent from the Department of health, I was told. And the rats have always occupied DC. They didn't appear out of nowhere to join the Occupiers, but their presence at McPherson has been jokingly referred to, by the Washington Post, I believe, as a rats' conference.

     I spoke mainly to the "embedded press," "Gonzo," a thirty-two-year-old man who spent some time in college studying journalism but couldn't graduate because he "couldn't do math." He has a website at Gonzotimes.com and writes it as Peace Loves Spray Paint, he told me. He plans to run against the unpopular Vincent Gray for mayor, as an Independent who will use his real name at that point. He'll have to. He'll get more votes that way. He has just been hired by Greenpeace and will begin work soon. Bravo, Gonzo!

     The job will finance a place to live. The Oklahoman has bounced from one low-paying job to another and plans to stay here, where the action is, even if it's Capitol Hill.

     He said that other Occupy locations persist in small towns in Oklahoma and Florida. Here the homeless have decided to support the groups more actively.

     The age of Occupiers ranges from very young to old. There are a few Vietnam veterans among them. Twenty percent of vets in this country are homeless, said Gonzo.

     Political support has been meagre. A few candidates for Congress have stopped by but none of the present ones, not even Kucinich, though vocal support has come from Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders and a few others, including Ron Paul, Gonzo told me. The one act in Congress concerning Occupy DC has been the vote to kick them out.

     "We're fighting for everyone," he said. Draped in an American flag, he walks the streets talking to people about Gray and Occupy. Reception is favorable. Occupiers can't act together; "autonomous action" is the policy. All are on their own.

     "A call of solidarity is needed," continued my informer. The People must get back into government. "We know we can stick it out."

     I asked him for precedents and he cited the Bonus Army, seventeen thousand World War I veterans along with twenty-six thousand others, who joined forces to demand cash redemption of certificates that weren't scheduled to mature until 1945. The year was 1932, during the Great Depression. Lasting a few months, the march was ultimately unsuccessful. In 1936, FDR vetoed a measure in Congress aspiring to pay these heroes early.

     Then there is the persistance at Tahrir Square, another inspiration.

     This ragtag militia fighting nonviolently on behalf of most of us needs a few things in return for their hard work. We all have a bit of time and a bit of help to donate. Let's do it.

(c)

"Reset" or "Strategic Pause": Pakistan's New Ambassador's First Remarks to U.S. Public

My most recent associations with Pakistan have been divided loyalties between East and West; the country's enmity with a strong U.S. ally, India, though a fragile peace is currently on the horizon between these close "cousins"; and shock that the U.S. search for bin Laden ended up at a sheltered location there. For me, that was just the Eastern aspect of Pakistan asserting itself, even as it is badly in need of U.S. aid.

     But all the above simplify a highly complex web of conflicts. Violence occurs daily in her country, the new ambassador from Pakistan to the United States told us in her first public remarks in this country, hosted at the U.S. Institute of Peace in Washington, DC. What amazed me the most about the brilliant and hugely accomplished Sherry Rehman was her absolute mastery not only of the English language--she attended college here and did outstandingly well--but of the idiom of diplomacy.

     All terminology with any violent connotations is surrounded with negatives (Pakistan is not just about "bombs and bullets," e.g.). Her narrative is one of cautious hope even as she frankly complained about America's "growing footprint" in her country. The media narrative of Pakistan is wholly negative, she lamented, where there is also a vibrant, multifaceted culture thriving in the context of a new and democratic government featuring elections, a functional parliament that sets foreign policy, and an effective judiciary who are beginning to cooperate well as other governmental institutions "striving for equilibrium."

     Amid all of this development, Rehman advocates a "strategic pause." There is much to set right.

     But are we speaking more than different languages? I have that feeling about the impasse in the Middle East. Which country was it that said that 9/11 occurs routinely there, though it was such a gaping, mind-boggling shock to us? It could be that on that day not only was fear born, but more of a commonality with the rest of the world, most of it on the same extended continent, and therefore internal decay from mutual hostilities is frequent history rather than a one-time, catastrophic trauma? We are so well situated we had become spoiled and now are less so, based on an ambience of fear.

     Air travel is no longer such fun as each U.S. outgoing or returning passenger is forced to relive 9/11 at some level.

     I greatly admire Rehman and others, including USIP, for taking on such a complex web of issues and trying both to make sense of them and to "reset" so much of what is wrong: daily occasions of violence among any number of terrorist or extremist (or both) groups that represent multiple nationalities and ethnic roots ("internal terrorism"); the NATO presence in Afghanistan that was severely hampered when Pakistan cut off the thoroughfare to Afghanistan that went through it in retaliation for the death of twenty-four Pakistani troops at Mohmand on the international border, without the immediate apology Pakistan expected from NATO.

     That tragedy was the straw that broke the camel's back--forgive the cliché--in 2011, a bad year for U.S.-Pakistan relations; the ambassador expressed this event as an "end-line trigger of a series of "bilateral catastrophes.'" The U.S. capture and killing of bin Laden was an affront to Pakistani sovereignty. That is a conundrum for scholars of international relations but fortunately did not in itself cause the outbreak of a war. The event probably distills the "cognitive dissonance" or "trust deficit" that plagues relations between the U.S. and Pakistan.

     Even as I read and reread the text of Rehman's remarks, which U.S.I.P. conscientiously distributed to attendees, I marvel anew at the language, not steeped enough myself in diplomatic venues but feeling like an outsider stumbling over British English for the first time and being amazed at its elegance. Does it conceal as much as it reveals? Is it a strong lid on an explosive pressure cooker? Can it be called, very simply, "Euphemisms," period?

     Even as the media embraced the first visit of China's "heir apparent" to leadership of the country, Xi Jinping, with a front-page photo of our mixed-lineage president warmly shaking the hand of the Asian diplomatic future between these two countries, I noticed in a small, parenthetical entry that Pakistan will now allow NATO to ship food to its troops in Afghanistan--the first time this has been allowed after what the media called an accidental killing, and we must believe this.

     Diplomacy is fraught with such complexity, hypocrisy (with its harsh reminder from Wikileaks recently), a nation unto itself with its own dialects, multiple layers, frantic attempts at communication amid this all. It keeps as much peace as can be kept, is one perspective, that lid on the boiling cauldron materialized? The ambassador's speech contained so much more--her country's pain at being left out of recent international negotiations and its "non-intrusive peace offensive" [note the oxymoron, where the denotation of violence is transformed] in its own region, "a concentric circle of countries" that include Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Russia, and China.

     Rehman professed no intention of "bringing a victim narrative" to Washington, but instead a plan to publish weekly statistics on casualties in her country that result from all forms of terrorism. The number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan is at a historic high and her country cannot afford another civil war there, she said. On the horizon is a "roadmap of the terms of our renewed cooperation."

     Watering the conflagration that is only part of her country's story is the first "sustained elected government in many decades"--the U.S. knows the "value of power rooted in democracy" and, concluded this protégée of Benazir Bhutto, "I for one am known for speaking truth to power."

     As a longtime advocate and activist for peace, I did not feel terribly powerful myself--marveling at her dignity and euphemistic challenge to find some treasure beneath the heaps of corpses that symbolize the chronic discord her country suffers from.

     I would love to have been a fly on the wall at the luncheon for various closely associated dignitaries that followed, including USIP associates. How can one enjoy an elegant luncheon amid that pressing burden of human tragedy expressed so delicately but containing so much? A diplomat might explain it the way an oncologist/surgeon could explain doffing his scrubs after operating all day, washing his hands, and going home for dinner.

     That's the "Atlas" mentality even as the rest of us are the ground on which they stand and without which they would fall. We're all in this together and peace is the Form toward which most of us strive and want to proselytize to the others, a justifiable form of proselytizing if there is one. Amid all the talking and shaking of hands, there is a solution somewhere.

     I'm looking for it as much as any diplomat.

(c)

The Way It Was: McPherson Square

I visited McPherson Square last week on one of those days when they were expecting a visit from the police--see my story http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Middle-Class-Is-Also-by-Marta-Steele-120201-641.html.

     No police. Hardly anyone there. I described the signs. Here are photos of them plus one of a homeless man who seemed quite mellowed out right where he was.

     The last I heard, there was a court decision allowing the Occupiers to remain there.

     Then came the surprise.

     I couldn't go there today. I have a broken ankle.

     There is another holdout at Freedom Plaza. Good luck to them.

( c )

1 February 2012: The Middle Class Is Also Too Big to Fail, or "O., Hearken unto Harkin, O."

This morning Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) addressed the Center for American Progress (CAP) on "Rebuilding the Middle Class." Some of the material echoes his response to the president's SOTU this year.

     Harkin, who has served in Congress for thirty-eight years--the first ten in the House before he defeated an incumbent to gain the Senate seat he has held for five terms in one of the most conservative states in the country--first referred to his landmark contribution to U.S. legislations and lifestyles, the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), a milestone in the uphill battle in this country to procure equal opportunities for all: equal access to education, health care, and presumably everything else FDR declared to be the Second Bill of Rights, which elaborated on the "pursuit of happiness" clause in the Declaration of Independence.

     The son of a coal miner and ROTC Scholar at the level of higher education, Harkin still lives in the humble home in Iowa where he was born, he said. In 2009, when Senator Ted Kennedy died, he took over as chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, and especially Kennedy's lifelong concern to legislate affordable health care for all Americans.

     The senator described his "elegant definition of the American dream": Amanda G. is a young Iowan social worker and her husband a teacher. The couple dreams not of huge wealth but inspiring careers, financial security throughout life, and higher education for their children.

     The Republicans are misguided in their premise that this country can't afford to rebuild its middle class. "The middle class is also too big to fail" (see title above), implied by this, quotes the words of the Vice President of Economic Policy at CAP, Michael Ettinger.

     And then came a fact that always mystifies me: the United States has the highest per capita income in the world and is the richest country in the world. Think of the $1.1 trillion deficit this year and the astronomical national debt (is it around $14 trillion or even more?).

     Harkin said that the huge growth in technology and other global changes contributed to the problems of the middle class, along with bad policy decisions that included the encouragement of outsourcing.

     He stressed the importance of not only job creation but the need for good jobs. To the claim that the government can't create jobs, he referred back to all of Abraham Lincoln's accomplishments for the common welfare even as this country fought the Civil War, as well as to FDR's federal initiatives that so fostered the survival and growth of the middle class.

     Harkin's Rebuild America Act comprises comprehensive legislation encompassing 1) infrastructure and manufacturing; 2) preparing all workers for twenty-first century-level employment; 3) empowering workers; 4) pensions; and 5) strengthening families.

     Under the first heading come supporting a manufacturing economy--overseas they are doing better at promoting domestic industry; financial opportunity; trade laws; changing tax laws; and promoting more research and development.

     Under the second heading appear challenge grants to encourage skills training, for both recent immigrants and other special-needs populations as well as others; and the need to improve the quality of teachers and supplying financial incentive in this process.

     The third heading encompasses raising the minimum wage, with cost-of-living increases as needed; overtime pay; unionization and other recognition of workers' rights; and penalties to employers who do not adhere to the preceding categories.

     Two-thirds of the disabled populations are now unemployed, the senator told us. Tax credits are needed to address this situation until it improves.

     In the fourth category, pensions have eroded, spreading understandable anxieties among the middle class. Thirty years ago, 50 percent of workers held permanent pensions. Today, a mere 20 percent enjoy them, while another 40 percent have only 401k provisions for retirement and another 40 percent have no provisions at all.

     In the fifth category, the senator praised the Affordable Health Care legislation recently passed [and soon to be challenged by the Supreme Court], regretting the moniker "sandwich generation" attached to those required to work two and three jobs at a time to support their families. He proposed block grants to prepare preschool children for subsequent educational experiences and family leaves from work in the evident of sickness or other difficulties.

     A sixth category then surfaced: how will all the above be financed? Through separate legislation, the senator answered his own question, taxing Wall Street trading at a rate charged until 1996, three cents on every hundred million dollars [hard to believe]. FDR doubled this rate. The senator also recommended enforcement of the "Buffett rule," that employers be prevented from paying income at the same rate or lower rate than do their employees [presuming the employer earns more than his/her employee].

     Back to generalities, the senator noted how trickle-down economics has failed to "percolate up"--one cannot fertilize a tree at the top, but only at the roots, he said. Congress and the government must have the backbone to rebuild the middle class.

     Harkin said that he was eager for feedback and "mild" criticism from the public.

     In answer to an audience question, the senator said that he's investigating for-profit educational institutions, which are "ripping off the poor," "run by hedge funds," and in these ways building up a massive debt--college graduate debts are higher than those accrued through credit cards. Harkin would like to see improvement in the oversight of Pell grants and student loans.

     Banks must also write off the huge fortune of mortgage debt crippling the country. In the nineteen eighties Congress rescheduled farmers' debts that were so overwhelming the industry was crumbling. More support is needed for rentals and other housing of the poor and near-poor, and what better time is there than now, when the federal government is borrowing at zero percent interest?!

     Answering another question, Harkin said that partnerships should be formed between industry and community colleges, funded by the federal government, to train workers to transition to the newly computer-driven economy.

     For-profit universities and colleges aren't all bad, said the senator, qualifying his earlier tirade.

     The hands raised were many and the audience question time limited. I would have asked how he imagined he could get such legislation through Congress; Harkin had mentioned that executive-branch support for his projects was about fifty-fifty. I would have asked whether President Obama might be persuaded to issue an executive order to activate all of the senator's far-reaching and excellent objectives. After a glance at the definition of the rubric "executive order," I quickly found that such orders have in the past "resulted in legal proceedings." (from Wikipedia)

     Why am I not surprised if not discouraged?

*****

After the CAP event, I visited the Occupation at McPherson Square in downtown DC. The tents are still there, though all of the daily living accoutrements have been ordered removed. The People's Library and Information Tent are still there, and a huge, blue and decorated "dream" tarp covers the statue of Major General McPherson on horseback.

     I spoke to a homeless man dressed very warmly, who said that he sleeps in his tent without bedding and will exit the tent if warned to. I spoke to a homeless artist. I took many pictures of witty signs that included "Help, police! My job is missing and has been stolen!" "Unemployed and with a 'Made in America' birth certificate," "I'm dreaming of my First Amendment rights," "Evicted from home by the banks; evicted from [here] by the police; the 99% has no safe place to rest," and "This is a workspace."

     Where are the photos? Somewhere in cyberspace between my cell phone and my computer. I'll put up a photographic essay or add to this story when they materialize.

     Thank you for your patience.

( c )

O's SOTU, ANNOTATED: BIDEN AND A SLICE OF FACE

The first time I watched a session of the UK parliament on television, I marveled at how physically fit they all were in the House of Commons, bobbing up and down like the pegs in that children's toy: smash one and another pops up.

     Audiences of the SOTU don't pop up and down that often. They stand for longer times. But there wasn't that much standing at this year's SOTU. And I heard a few BOO's also, one the last sound before the president began his speech.

     Then, up above the prez for some reason, the VP and Speaker of the House sit looking down on him--God and the devil? So it seemed this evening as Biden got full camera while only the far right of Boehner's visage was apparent, a slice. No symmetry there or in Congress. A microcosm perhaps. I studied camera foci as much as I listened to Obama's plea for four more years or, as the ABC commentators said, his response to three months of Republican campaign attacks.

     I heard Diane Sawyer's count of nine months and three days until Election Day and I couldn't help but think of another greater speech that began with "Four score and seven years." Indeed Obama did hearken back to at least one distinguished Republican, Abe Lincoln. Oh, come on. Lincoln's statue would shatter at that parallel. Speak softly, Bar.

     Other pre-SOTU thoughts from Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos: two-thirds of the country don't believe that things in this country are getting better. Congress is as divided as we've ever seen it. But how Gabrielle Giffords has twice brought together Congress as a unit, as if it were a unit, as the Senate marched into the chamber in a single clump tonight. Can't something less drastic than fatal gunfire create nonpartisanship, patriotism?

     Boehmer hadn't spoken to Obama in a month, we were further told; the prez has a score of 54 percent favorability, an achievement that has crept up slowly from the doldrums of--I'm not sure how low a score, but low. And how many incumbents have regained their seats after this pattern? I don't know, but with one open-marriage nut running against a tax evader and outsourcer, stranger things have happened than the incumbent kept. Surely we've chosen the lesser of two evils before. Last time we got whom we wanted, but the two previous times the "worst man won." So "lesser of two evils" is the trope of our times, perhaps.

     I don't mean to diminish the speech itself, which was filled with effective anaphorae like Send me a bill for _____ and Ill sign it." And lots of occurrences of fair" and share" and even an echo of a time long gone, something akin to Yes, we can." That means its campaign time again.

     The camera crew denied us the real show by hiding all but an expressionless slice of Boehner's face. Those shots of Cheney sitting next to Nancy Pelosi were priceless in 2006 and 2007.

     The SOTU described, despite those 66.6% of little faith, how rosy things really are and how the best is yet to come:

     For the first time in nine years the U.S. is out of Iraq, completely out. (Think not of how many died, but how many survived);

     The twenty-year threat of bin Laden is now over (thirty years ago we were friends, though);

     Some troops have returned from Afghanistan, more will return next summer, and think how much money we will be saving; that poor war-shredded country will no longer be a haven for our enemies (forget how much we spent--it wasn't in the budget anyway);

     Our military have exceeded all of our expectations. If we follow their example, we'll learn a lot (no wise cracks, but you know what I'm thinking--all that weaponry that didn't go unused). Tuck this in; the theme returns).

     Here's what we can do: lead the world again in education, high-paying jobs, an economy built to last, rewards for hard work. We can do this. (not "yes, we can!!")

     Consider the twentieth century, a great time when we triumphed over the Great Depression and Fascism. Thence was born the American dream: house, kids, two-car garage, picket fence, mortgage, car loan (desperate housewives?)

     WE MUST BRING BACK THE AMERICAN DREAM! No more failure for many and success reserved for a few (Right, Boehner? Couldn't see his face).

     Remember the huge CRASH in 2008 (that's when I was elected)?

     Banks' gambles didn't pay off--we bailed them out and now they can pay us back with a small fee charged to them for each--(I forget what, but something that will benefit the rest of us)

     There is a division between the District and the rest of the country. And get this: SEND ME A BILL TO BAN INSIDER TRADING IN CONGRESS AND I'LL SIGN IT! (Oh. My. God.)

     We've got to separate lobbyists from donations. That is, lobbyists shouldn't bribe and political donations shouldn't be bribes. (something like that. Uh, run that by again?)

     Criticism of Congress (Boehner, please stop cussing me out back there. Let's be friends);

     Criticism of the executive branch: outdated, remote, watch me slim down the bureaucracy and consolidate all those redundant agencies in five different departments, fr'instance. LET US END MUTUAL DESTRUCTION AND BUILD CONSENSUS (he does endorse free trade later on, which gains a camera shot of the whole Boehner, briefly)

     To quote Lincoln, the government should do for the people only what the people can't do for themselves (Did I get that right? Thunderous applause from below--Lincoln was a Republican! What's in a name?)

     We can make progress in nonpartisanship. WE MUST ACT TOGETHER (camera on Mitch McConnell, expressionless, still as stone, no pop-up peg)

     Let's get rid of Assad (reluctant applause from Boehner)

     And then the camera fixed squarely on Lieberman as the subject of IRAN was broached. The world has come together. We will not step down from those crippling sanctions (cripple Achmedinejad, not the poor people). Peace is still an option (Will there be anybody left?) (Eric Cantor, who has been photographed dry as cement a few times, now applauds.)

     Our oldest alliances are stronger. (Now camera is on grinning Chuck Schumer) We have the closest military involvement ever with Israel; relations with Burma are improving.

     AMERICA IS BACK! WE'RE NOT IN DECLINE!! (standing ovation for a few seconds)

     The U.S. is an indispensable nation in the realm of world affairs (too many people have died, haven't they?)

     We will save half a trillion dollars and still have a wonderful military . . .

     And then, and then, "FREEDOM ENDURES BECAUSE OF THE MILITARY!" (Boehner stands up and applauds--that was worth it)

     Now it is our turn to serve them. Annual V.A. allocations have risen each year of O's administration. New tax breaks will be awarded to firms that hire veterans (the ones who are still functional)

     We will hire new cops and firefighters--veterans will be great for those jobs (Yoo hoo, GI Bill, where are you? $74,000 a year tuition? We will have saved half a trillion clams, don't forget!)

     Again, we can learn from the military; they do not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, or gender (sorry, there is sexism, bad sexism--pardon my irreverence);

     They look out for each other (agreed).

     One of his most prized possessions is a flag given to him by one of the Navy Seals who killed bin Laden. Watching that mission go forward, he sat in between Bill Gates and Hillary Clinton (did Hillary stop applauding long enough to shake hands with Bar? Did he slip more asides to Bill than to Hill? Gates, that is.)

     The mission succeeded because each unit of it trusted each other (and they all blamed 9/11 on bin Laden--again, pardon my irreverence)

     Our destiny (both Republican and Democratic as well as Independent etc.) is stitched together like the fifty stars and thirteen stripes (there's a statistic! Don't lose it! But flags are mass-produced today, Bar. Betsy Ross died a while ago.)

     THERE IS NO CHALLENGE TOO GREAT! LET US JOIN IN OUR COMMON PURPOSE AS WE MOVE FORWARD. AMERICA WILL ALWAYS BE STRONG! ANYONE WHO TELLS YOU OTHERWISE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT! (anyone specific in mind? Evidently not a woman, not even Bachman. Oh, that's the generic "he").

     I twisted things around a bit; the president did not end with a negative. That was just close to the end. Please don't fault me if I haven't quoted verbatim--that's a disclaimer. I did my best. It's been a long day.

     I listened to a few Democratic criticisms and then turned off the tube before the Republicans could charge. I'd seen enough of them. (Watching Eric Cantor clap O. on both shoulders as if his Mom were behind him pinching him was enough).

     First, the decision to allow young illegal immigrants to stay and thrive and then lock the border in stone comes a bit late (he wouldn't be campaigning, would he?).

     Then, a speech about everything is a speech about nothing.

     And then, Obama's ratings went up a bit during the speech. And then, we'll have to choose between a cultural populist and an economic populist (Who might they be?).

     Commented Diane Sawyer, "One hour and five minutes" (not four score and seven, by a long shot).

      ( c )

The Rise and Consequences of Inequality: Alan Krueger, Presidential Economist, Addresses CAP

The Center for American Progress (CAP) today welcomed Alan Krueger, chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers and former Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy and Chief Economist of the U.S. Department of Treasury.

     Welcoming him was the new president of CAP, Neera Tanden, who let us know that the middle class as the most important ingredient in the economy is a distinctly American phenomenon. currently under attack by the trickle-down economic policy Reagan bequeathed us (but how many times did he raise taxes?). Fully 40 percent of the national income now accrues to the upper class.

     That means, in our case, that only one-third of the children of this generation have a shot at the American dream, continued Tanden. It must be for everyone, though. They must have the same opportunities that we did. The middle class, which contributed so much to the success of the American economy, is no longer benefiting from it.

     Alan Krueger wrestles with these issues every day, she said, yielding the podium to him.

     Krueger said that his specialty was labor economics, appropriate in this day and age for the dialogue on growth and his attempts to understand inequality relative to the job market. Reaganomics over the last three decades has contributed to the decline of the economy, he said.

     Using nine Powerpoint graphs to illustrate his talking points, Krueger told us that 1) the growth rate of income distribution steadily increased between World War II and the 1970s; after that it shrank and the economic classes grew apart;

     2) An exception to the Reaganomic trend halted its effect during the Clinton administration; the economic classes grew together again; Bush 41's tax increase benefited the decade;

     3) In the first decade of the new millennium the median income dropped;

     4) As to after-tax income adjusted for inflation, the top one percent's grew 278 percent between 1979 and 2007; that of the middle class grew by 40 percent;

     5) The top one percent's growth was equal to that of their peers in the 1920s--in today's terms the amount translates to $1.1 trillion, more than the income of the bottom 40 percent of the population;

     6) The percentage of people whose incomes fall at the median point is shrinking, a phenomenon called "polarization." There are fewer in the middle, called "kurtosis," and more on either end.

     As inequality has increased, economic mobility has decreased--that is, it has been stable as a whole because women entered the labor market and their incomes have increased since the seventies, while men's haven't. Parents' income is a good predictor of their children's, relevant, surprisingly, to the height of the father. I hope I have this right. The chance for the child's income to rise is equal to the probability of a short father engendering a tall son. If the parents' income is above average, the chance of the children's to reach that level is 20 percent

     Countries with lower income equality experience less growth.

     7) Since the 1980s there has been a sharp rise in inequality; we expect this inequality to increase but won't know until our children grow old enough to be measured in this regard.

     8) Since the 1980s again, income mobility has risen about 25 percent as a result of the inequality of the preceding thirty years; the fortunes of the parents predict those of their children; inequality will increase in the future unless the middle and lower classes gain access to success; the disparity of wages is key, but this is a focal point of disagreement.

     9) This graph depicts changes wrought by automation, which has favored analytical skills; the income gap between educated and uneducated employees has soared, but the supply of educated employees has decreased; however, the increase in income for those in the fields of finance and real estate between 1999 and 2005 grew by more than 25 percent. Benefits from globalization have been abysmal for others.

     The number of union members has declined from 20 percent to 14 percent of the workforce, which is mirrored by the descent from the middle class into the lower class; Bush-era tax cuts have obviously benefited the wealthy, reducing the "progressivity" of income taxes.

     10) Our "progressivity" is lower than that in other countries and the lowest in our history; in startups there was more job growth in the 1990s than in the 2000s; public policy provides fewer opportunities for poor families and has exacerbated their misfortune. A cut in real estate taxes will benefit the wealthy, as will a cut in estate taxes.

     Families have borrowed beyond their means, which has reduced consumption. According to studies, consumption by upper classes is lower; the top one percent save one-half of their profits, while the lower classes put away 10 percent. Had they been able to save as much as the rich did, the economy would have grown. All in all, the upper class has not been studied that much, despite all the figures given above.

     According to the International Monetary Fund, the more equality there is in our society the more the economy will grow; the reverse is also true. In the realm of microeconomics, morale describes productivity--where there is a disparity among the incomes of workers, morale drops and productivity goes down.

     As to solutions, to recreate the middle class, hard work has been done; health care reform has helped; children aged 19 to 25 benefit from being kept on their parents' insurance policies; tax subsidies granted to small businesses paying competitive insurance rates have helped; the lower classes are always hardest hit by economic "humps." The U.S. Jobs Act has handed an extra $1 thousand per year to the middle class, and the extension of unemployment insurance through this month must be extended once more through the end of this year.

     Opportunities for less-skilled workers are needed; we should use the "Buffett Rule" and make income percentage equal so that secretaries won't be paying out tax percentages greater than do their CEOs; we must return estate taxes to their previous levels and raise taxes on the rich. More fairness of the economy will benefit all, as will growth of the middle class, which will lead to more consumption.

     The first audience question came from Neera Tanden, who asked whether the economy could be improved without a focus on the middle class. Krueger answered that downturns negatively impact lower-class mobility. More money is needed for higher education--this country boasts the best in the world--and for improvement in the infrastructure, which will put many more people to work. The Congressional Budget Office has said that an extension in unemployment benefits will improve the economy.

     Not only do we have the best universities in the world; we also have the most daring entrepreneurs. The world is following this direction.

     Questions from the press had been plentiful, so that after the event many in the audience crowded to the front, including me. I pushed past people shamelessly and as I got toward the front I said, "Left wing!" Surprisingly, the crowd became a circle. I moved ahead and told Mr. Krueger that I wrote for OEN, a left-wing vehicle, and that many readers, alienated from Obama, don't plan to vote for him. What can he say?

     He answered that we should know that the president is working on our behalf every day--there was a meeting session on insourcing yesterday. Our problems were inherited from the preceding decade. Improvements can't happen overnight.

     I wanted to hear that the most recent upturn in the economy can be attributed to something besides trickle-down economics. I wondered how Obama would incorporate this improvement into his campaign and brag about it and take credit for it. I wanted to come away with something new to write about, not just stats bolstering events we all know about. If my economics above aren't exactly accurate, please know that I still want the economy to improve but will leave the technicalities to others.

(c)

5 January 2012: Occupy: Dissecting Occupy Wall Street--
A New Dissection by Danny Schechter
with a foreword by Greg Palast

--KEY QUOTATIONS--

"T]his festering situation is still underway as I write."--D.S.

"We have a right to fight for what's right."--MLK

"Wall Street's banks are not only not too big to fail, but not too big to jail."--D.S.

"You can't evict an idea whose time has come."--poster at #Occupy

"Wall Street already occupies the world. Can OWS dislodge it?"--D.S.

"History is happening."--D.S.

***************************

It is difficult to describe Danny Schechter's Occupy as a dissection, because it paints this monumental event in such colorful terms as it waxes, wanes, and wanders. It is more like a documentary--a multimedia experience that includes narrative (Danny's blogs--picture DS in front of the mike in any of a number of his documentaries); visuals (the signs with their insightful slogans and graphics); photography at the opening of each chapter; poetry and song; the General Assembly's two-part manifesto ("We are daring to imagine a new sociopolitical and economic alternative that offers greater possibility of equality. We are consolidating the other proposed principles of solidarity, after which demands will follow"); quotations from celebrities and talking heads; the Script of a TV Report, "Behind The Scenes of the Occupation," for Press TV's "In Focus" program; the film itself (a separate effort, which I hope is included with the hard copy as a DVD); day-by-day journals by Schechter and finally Wikipedia; and more.

     Danny the filmmaker, Danny the producer of mainstream TV episodes and PBS series, Danny the radio maven, Danny the activist, Danny the dissector has donated to history an invaluable archive, a cornerstone for an edifice that I am sure will rise high above the Gotham landscape, as the people occupy their native land, fighting back the fate that demolished the Native American culture. Has #Occupy heard from the Indians yet?

      One pervasive trope with which I disagree is that goals are unclear--to me 99 versus one is plenty clear and pervasive enough--to the extent that at least one Wall Street financeer sits down with Danny for his lunch break to gripe that while his pension dissolved with the cave-in of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers he met a retired teacher basking in his pension unworried as he nonetheless stands solid with his 99 percenters, as his profession is suffering such abuse at the hands of the one percenters, frustrated that we're not dumbed down enough to accept the abuse with a whisper--of surrender.

      Throughout this multimedia marvel, there are clues that shout down the premise, embedded even in the manifesto (see above), that a bulleted list ("demands," a provocative term that alienates even me) must distill all the drama, all the trauma, all the wounds, all the violence, all the defiance, all the heroism, all the brilliance, all the creativity, all the innovation.

      This book IS a bulleted list. Get over it. We must get past that mentality.

Viz., in Danny's own words:

"[O]ccupy Wall Street has been criticized for not having a program or a blueprint for change. yet, that perceived weakness might be its greatest strength.

"When you enunciate a complicated charter, you lose supporters and give others issues to disagree over. You end up having your own supporters debating the fine points of each issue and risk becoming factionalized."

      I have extracted from the book our bulleted list--forgive the many repetitions, but here it is:

*occupying Wall Street, challenging the power of its economic power;

*campaign against inequality;

*the issues of joblessness and economic inequality gets on the agenda of media and political institutions;

*an occupation to challenge the money state;

*to build a community of the dispossessed and discontented;

*opposing rampant financial fraud;

*income inequality, money in politics and Wall Street's influence;

*the loss of jobs, pensions and homes;

*political disenfranchisement and social and economic injustice;

*the blatant injustices of our times perpetuated by the economic and political elites;

*income inequality, money in politics and Wall Street's influence;

and finally,

*mounting inequality, against joblessness and insecurity, against obscene levels of student debt, against anti-labor employers, against police brutality, against foreclosures, evictions, and the lack of healthcare.

      I tried to distill this all into a small paragraph:

"Our goal is for that percentage divide to narrow instead of become exponential as we are forced to define 'tycoons' as 'the one percent of the one percent, etc.' as does Paul Krugman, among others."

      The top one percent has displayed an infinite and hugely impressive amount of genius and ingenuity, albeit in violation of every level of the law; let them turn these skills toward the above bulleted list and cure it, with all those principles they profess in church once a week. The ultimate challenge posed by their Lord Jesus Christ is to love the enemy and be loved back by him/her. Thus enmity disappears.

********************************

In Danny's words, the book is "a collection of my reports and commentaries as I played participatory journalist, reporting less on the day-to-day than on deeper trends." He goes back in recent history to his own neglected prophecies, published as blogs, books, and films, of the imminent financial collapse and then his first efforts, beginning on Wall Street in 2008, to initiate the occupation; then to his colleague David DeGraw's distillation of the huge showdown as the 99 percent versus the one percent, a crucial step in any movement--power of the word--and how the actual occupation proceeded quickly to take shape soon thereafter.

      The date September 17 has joined a pantheon of unique occasions identified calendrically, and its own significance is dissected in terms of other important events that transpired on other September 17's:

"September 17 is the anniversary of the signing of the United States Constitution. Years later, on that day, Francis Scott Key finished the poem that was to be turned into the "Star Spangled banner," our national anthem. It was the day of the battle of Antietam, the bloodiest day in the American civil war. It was the day the Camp David agreements between Egypt and Israel [were] signed, and it was the day that the New York Stock Exchange reopened after the attack on 9/11."

      Danny reiterates an MLK quotation he used in his review of the dedication of the MLK Memorial: "History may not repeat itself but can reveal similarities of spirit and political learning curves. Because #Occupy is new as well as old. In a December 30, 2011, posting, Michael Moore names December 30, 1936, the day that the UAW was born, as "the first Occupy":

"75 years ago today--hundreds of workers at the General Motors factories in Flint, Michigan, took over the facilities and occupied them for 44 days. My uncle was one of them."

      After the success of that movement, other occupations "spread like wildfire," as did the "wildfire" of self-immolation kindled by the defiant Tunisian Mohamed Bouazizi, who, in the words of songwriter David Rovics, "[s]truck a match that lit up all the Earth."

      Did the first occupation ever occur in Flint? I daresay it may have occurred in Genesis, when the people united to build that ill-fated tower, another 99 percent versus the one percent. Or even earlier than that? Don't mean to blaspheme.

      And forget not that our autumn rising was inspired by the Arab Spring, which in turn was reinspired by it, as the Egyptians returned to Tahrir Square when the military that replaced Mubarak began to settle into disappointing complacency.

      #Occupy received press once the presence of so many international journalists paved the way for our own "infotainers"; we received a google of Google hits; we raised money--$483,000 by October.

      Danny not only offers us the details and the holistics, from the nitty gritty to the philosophical; he also offers next steps. I marveled at the solution of moving homeless people into foreclosed homes, but that is a nitty-gritty, and others equally brilliant must follow; but Danny takes a dangerous giant step: here is where we must borrow from history, mixing the new with the old without losing ourselves in the process, perhaps the toughest part of this nascent Revolution:

"Building this movement will require more outreach, and more alliances with sympathetic organizations in Labor, on campuses, and in the community. At some point, they will have to enter into coalitions despite fears of co-optation. Some spokespeople may have to emerge out of the leaderless environment with its commitment to consensus.

"[T]hey also need to champion and understand related issues like demanding the prosecution and incarceration of financial criminals and fraudsters.

"[T]he 'us' in the movement is far broader than those who are able to participate in physical occupation. The movement is everyone who sends supplies, everyone who talks to their friends and families about the underlying issues, everyone who takes some form of action to get involved in this civic process.

      And farther than all of these people, the "us" encompasses others we must reach:

"I believe the movement has to stay true to itself, but make all of these issues more personal to the American people who are suffering because of Wall Street's manipulations. . . . The millions of disaffected Americans hard hit by the economic crisis. A few infomercials and ads might help. How else can they reach and organize the sympathy that is out there?"

      One of the "talking heads" in this documentary narrative, Jean Ross, Co-President, National Nurses United, has this to say this, a fitting conclusion to a review that demands a full reading of the book:

"It's become a little community here. And you know these are the kinds of things you hope would happen in an environment like this. You don't usually see it until after some sort of a natural disaster; well this I call an unnatural disaster, what spurred it."

      All that's left to say is that I was underlining important points to put into my review, but I ended up underlining everything. This is a document of essential importance for all. How to obtain it? Visit this site.

(c)

4 January 2012: From Dearborn to DC: All-American Muslim Cast Members' Forum

Sponsored by the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), the largest civil rights organization in this country, the reality TV show All-American Muslim (AAM) descended from the screen into three dimensions at the West End Cinema this evening.

     Suehaila (Sue) and Bilal (Billy) Amen joined Nina Bazzy-Aliahmad and TLC (cable tv) producer Alvin Ornstein to discuss their personal experiences making the show and their feelings about it. Abed Ayoub, the legal director for ADC, was moderator.

     An audience of about fifty along with numerous Facebook and Twitter users followed the lively discussion with many questions about this show that has stimulated more public and media discussion and reaction than any other so far. Most publicized was the home store Lowe's decision to stop advertising on the program, misled by the conservative Florida Family Association. Lowe's example was unfortunately followed by others, but according to TLC sponsorship remained strong.

     At its annual convention in Washington, DC, ADC plans to award the pioneering TLC for this first reality program about Arab Americans, in this case all Lebanese Americans who live in Dearborn, Michigan, where the largest Muslim American community outside of the Middle East resides.

     Response to the eight-part series has fluctuated but statistics are high enough that TLC is contemplating continuation of the program, which is its best received to date, said Ornstein. There was a good bit of discussion about the issues AAM might focus on if the series continues. More interaction with non-Muslims was a popular theme, and the suggestion by an African American tv and radio anchor that African American Muslims and Christians join episodes also, extended this conversation, a controversial issue because of inherent misunderstandings, which all those on stage agreed should be remedied.

     The conversation began with all cast members agreeing that AAM was a great experience, "showing that we're like everyone else," having cookouts on July 4, Memorial Day, Labor Day, and so on. Nina noted that they've received a lot of positive feedback.

     On behalf of TLC, Alvin Ornstein thanked families for letting his families into their homes.

     The next question, Which was worse, criticism from outside or from within? received mixed answers: thick-skinned Billy said outside criticism hurt the most, while Nina reacted more strongly to the alternative, because of her close, familial relationship with her community. Sue's reaction was similar, though she sadly mentioned all of the hateful messages posted on Facebook and Twitter.

     "The show is all about being yourself," said Ornstein.

     As to aspects of the characters not apparent in the programming, Sue raved about Nina's charitable generosity. Billy spoke of his profession, teaching and training children; he also lectures at mosques weekly. In the preceding ten years, he has worked with forty thousand children--hard to imagine! He works in Wayne County, one of the largest counties in the United States, and only a small percentage of these children are Muslim.

     Sue stated that she is more politically oriented than Billy and has thought about moving to DC to work for the federal government or an embassy, but this conflicts with her deep attachment to her familial community in Dearborn. She said that she cries often and feels that she is carrying the weight of the world.

     The process of selecting a community to "realize" on TV was difficult, said Ornstein. His crew traveled the country but stopped at Dearborn, a dynamic community filled with storylines on how the cast members' faith informs their lives.

     And what role has AAM played in knocking down negative stereotypes? Said Sue, she knew the program would be effective in highlighting an epicenter of Islam where Sharia law is not practiced. Billy added that it emphasizes our common ground rather than differences. "The show's purpose is to educate," said Ornstein, later adding that TLC "doesn't shy away from issues."

     Sue said that much more effort and outreach to Arab communities is needed [there were times when "Muslim" and "Arab" were used interchangeably]. They lack a lobby and therefore any input into congressional decisions and legislation. Muslims have contributed greatly to the American community. (In search of statistics, I found that many Muslims in the military withhold specifying their religion to avoid harassment.) We are so categorized, so separated into groups, said Nina. "I wish we would come together."

     Ten forty-three-minute programs were assembled and edited out of four months of filming. Those inimitable couch conversations lasted far longer than the programming suggests, said Billy.

     An audience member drew a parallel between Billy's fatigue with having to justify Islam and 9/11 and theologist Karen Armstrong's admission that she has given up on arguing that Muslims aren't violent.

     At least two of the families featured on AAM are "Sushi"--where one parent is Shiite and the other is Sunni, and the marriages are solid rather than microcosms of hostility.

     The conversation ended on a very upbeat note. Billy remarked that the next few generations of Muslim youth will shock us. Adolescents are extremely ambitious and motivated. Sue belongs to an organization that awards scholarships in a variety of professional disciplines, encouraging Muslim youth in their drive to become a more integral part of American society. She herself, in her own outreach project, belongs to the YWCA.

(c)

####

For blogs published prior to November 30, 2010, see the *ARCHIVES* page. Also note that the link "editing" that was at the bottom of this page has now become a separate webpage, Editingunltd.com.

     Published since April 1999, Words, UnLtd. is a labor of love. Editor and contributor Marta Steele has won numerous awards for her editing, writing, and scholarship. She is published at Opednews.com, Newsdissector.org/blog, Gregpalast.com, and Alternet.org, among other sites. She also communicates her thoughts often to the New York Times in its various reader forums; three of her letters to the editor have been published. Her work first appeared online on Votermarch.org in the summer of 2001, a month before 9/11. Additional reprint credits include the London Observer, Unprecedented.org, and the Princeton Peace Network in the News links.

"Is there anything so miraculous in the universe as human consciousness? The more scientists study, the less probable it seems that there is anything else out there in the vastness of space besides complete, impersonal phenomena: seething masses of light and energy, nothing that thinks."
--"Consciousness II: The Miracle Reconsidered," November 1999

"To strive, to seek, to find, but not to yield," is how Tennyson's "Ulysses" chooses to spend his last years, disappointed, after all, at attaining everything he longed for and then quickly becoming bored in his premature retirement. The stillness he strove for those twenty years (see the November 1999 issue of Words) necessitates perpetual motion, it seems. What we really strive after is by definition unattainable because of our human limitations. Perhaps all our striving somehow realizes this even as we never stop. And that is the romance, the tragedy, and the infinite grandeur of the human condition. Be careful what we pray for, indeed. Because in the end we do not and cannot really understand it in its fullest sense."
--"Further Millennium Thoughts," December 1999

"Traveling is the concentrate of life. We become so preoccupied with preserving moments, impressions, and views. Each night after the frenzied activities that preceded and never encompass enough, I take out my notebook and scribble down every detail I can and every image that occurs. I scribble for myself in the future, as writer and rememberer, devouring the present tense that is so illusive always."
--"England I: Psycho-Architecture..." March 2000

"To sketch our ideal leader would be a challenge. What superhumanity this role requires and how few of us can measure up. He must partake of human nature and yet transcend it, for human nature is basically at fault for all the issues she must face: human nature, above all other things, which are, after all, conquerable. The only thing we will never really master is ourselves."
--"Lest We Forget," March 2000