POLITICS OF THE AUTOMOBILE: ARE HYBRIDS AND BIODIESEL THE ANSWER? (THE AUTOMOBILE, PART 2)

Here in Portland, Oregon, the self-proclaimed green capitol of the world (a lot of which is true), the politics of the automobile are in plain sight. Hordes of Toyota Prius and other hybrid cars glide silently by on the streets (as one friend says, decreasing the smog but increasing the smug). A growing number of gas stations sell locally-made biodiesel, and some businesses and government agencies have/are converting their fleets to this fuel. These are positive trends for the environment and the economy, and they demonstrate that individuals can make choices that are "correct." What troubles me, however, is that these correct trends might also be ignoring the real issues, what I call the politics of the automobile.

The lead story in today's newspaper Autos section reads: "Lexus brings GS hybrid up to speed." The article, about the 2007 Lexus (Toyota) GS 450h, is about, in the writer's words, "the world's first luxury hybrid hot rod." For only $55,000 or more, you can get a hybrid car that does 0-60-miles per hour in just 5.2 seconds!! Great - a totally luxurious car that goes real fast, and is a hybrid, meaning it's also a "correct" car. Well...not exactly. Like a lot of the new hybrids on the market, both Japanese and American, this automobile has the hybrid technology primarily for one reason, greater acceleration. The Lexus GS 450h is EPA rated at 25 city/28 highway gas mileage. That's what we get with our 1993 V6 Toyota Camry XLE (see my Automobile Part 1)! A quick look at a government site about fuel efficiency reveals the following:

2006 Lexus GS 300/GS 430 (non-hybrid): 22/30 MPG, $1566 annual fuel cost
2007 Lexus ES 350 (non-hybrid): 21/30 MPG, $1566 annual fuel cost
2007 Lexus GS 450h (hybrid): 25/28 MPG, $1507 annual fuel cost.

So the new Lexus hybrid uses slightly less fuel in the city and more on the highway than last years non-hybrid model, and saves about $60 a year in fuel costs; now that's progress! To be fair, the new hybrid has a much better EPA rating for air emissions - a good thing.

What am I trying to say here? While hybrid technology and alternative fuels are good things, let's not overlook the basic fact that these are all variations on a theme - the automobile as the basic mode of transportation. I've often thought that if we had to do an Environmental Impact Statement for the automobile, we might not be driving them in the future. The automobile has been the driving force (pun intended) behind a lot of our urban design and many other social and economic aspects of our culture. Too many of us define ourselves by the car we drive, hence the development of the fast luxury car and the monster SUV - machines that really don't make a lot of sense.

Meanwhile, back in Portland, the green capitol of the world, it seems like a growing number of people are thinking about the politics of the automobile. During the daily commute, some streets look like the photos we used to see from China, with hundreds of bicyclists peddling to and from work. Buses and light-rail commuter trains are filled with people. Urban development in and around the downtown is booming, attracting many new city dwellers away from the burbs. Streetcars, once the norm in Portland as well as most American cities, have reappeared. And people seem to be (gasp!) walking more than before. So maybe there's hope after all that we'll understand the politics of the automobile and make informed choices.

THE SAME OLD BU(LL)SH(IT)

"The party of FDR and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run," Bush told a convention-center audience of over 2,000 people. Does anyone agree with this man? Does anyone not see the spin dribbling out of his mouth? What the hell is he talking about, anyway?

First of all, what does "cut and run" mean?

An old nautical expression. In an emergency, it was sometimes necessary to cut the anchor cable, instead of going through the time-consuming business of winching up the anchor, in order to get away quickly ('run' before the wind, at full sail).

So "cut and run' is not a coward's business, "cut and run" is a deliberate strategy employed when faced with impending danger. A very worth-while article on using this strategy for the Iraq war is "Cut and Run? You Bet!" by Lt. General William E. Odum, published in the journal Foreign Policy earlier this year.

The facts speak for themselves: the Bushies have lost their war in Iraq; the "War on Terror" is a dismal failure; the U.S. intelligence agencies all agree that the Iraq war has made us less safe, and has been a huge success for the jihadists; Americans other than the very wealthy are worse off now than we were thirty years ago; U.S. debt is huge - we're owned by China - and getting bigger; global warming is a reality; and the United States of America has chosen to take the moral low ground with the President's law allowing torture, secret jails, and kangaroo trials.

But hey, it's an election year, so the R's roll out the Rove robots and smear everyone in sight who dares be critical of them, using lies, deception, inuendo and spin, spin, spin.

Isn't it time that we all realized that the bullshit is eyeball-high, and do something about it? Let's see what November brings.

REACTING TO HURTFUL REMARKS

(from the New York Times, August 18, 2006) The civil rights leader Andrew Young, who was hired by Wal-Mart to improve its public image, resigned from that post last night after telling an African-American newspaper that Jewish, Arab and Korean shop owners had “ripped off” urban communities for years, “selling us stale bread, and bad meat and wilted vegetables.” (see full article)

So what are Jews, Arabs and Koreans doing about this insult? Has any rabbi declared a jewhad against Ambassador Young and Wal-Mart? Have former governors and ambassadors been gunned down in the street? Have Wal-Marts been firebombed? Well, no, not in this country. Mr. Young has been roundly criticized by Jewish-, Arab-, and Korean-American leaders, as well as by Wal-Mart, his former employer. Mr. Young has issued a public apology. And that's it, although there will be collective memory of his unfortunate remarks for a long time.

And this is what I call civilized behavior.

HUMOR IN THE NEWS

OK, one thought I had while lounging around Italy last month was that my posts tend to be very serious, and I take that input serious - - - ly.

So, a new feature is being added to Read My Opinion - Humor in the News.

From the headlines of September 18, 2006:

Conservationists have petitioned the federal government to have the Palouse Giant Earthworm listed as an endangered species. - Special interest groups are already weighing in on both sides. An anti-listing petition is being widely circulated by the political committee of the largemouth bass association.

President Bush wants US intelligence and military personnel to be allowed to use torture techniques on terrorist prisoners. - The President expressed surprise that there are objections to the use of some forms of questioning, such as water-boarding: "Heck, we always enjoyed water-boarding behind Poppy's muscle boat in the summertime!"

International Space Station astronauts implemented emergency measures after detecting a "foul odor." - The situation was resolved when they discovered that one of them had tried a new 6-bean chili recipe for dinner the previous day.

Pope insults Muslims..... - [blogmaster notice: this "joke" has been deemed not funny, and has been removed after reading press releases by Al Quada in Iraq about "chopping necks"....]

A MONTH OFF

I haven't posted since late July. A month in Italy was great (except for landing at Heathrow on August 10 in the middle of a terrorism alert, not getting to Rome when planned, and not getting one suitcase back until September 12!).

A lot has happened in the world since my last post, and yet nothing seems to be all that different from before. Lots of things to write about, so I'll be back on-line soon.

ISRAEL AND HEZBOLLAH: THE BIG, SCARY PICTURE

Since my last posting, I've had a daily e-mail exchange with a friend about the situation in Israel-Lebanon. His opinion is that if Israel would give to the Palestinians 100 percent of the West Bank in addition to Gaza, and a corridor connecting the two, all of this fighting in Israel and Lebanon would be over because the Palestinian people would have what they want, and they would not tolerate the terrorists anymore. Unfortunately, I think this proposed solution misses the bigger picture, and ignores a brutal reality about geopolitics and the future.

Look at a map of the midddle East: http://www.uark.edu/depts/globmark/middeastmap.jpg

A few simple facts: Iran and Syria are supporters of Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran is a Shiite-dominated country. In Iraq, a dominant figure is the Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, an ally of Iran and in solidarity with Hezbollah and Hamas. al-Sadr controls more than 30 seats in the Iraqi parliament and 5 cabinet positions. He is linked to death squads that have acted brazenly to murder Iraqis and Americans since early 2004. The Hezbollah leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, is also a Shiite with close ties to Iran and Syria.

Going back to the map, we can see a large arc of territory either controlled by Shiite extremists or with large and growing elements of Shiite extremism - Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. This "group of folks" has clearly stated goals that include bringing their brand of Islam to a place of power in larger and larger portions of the world.

This is very scary to think about. We are in a global power struggle between democratic societies and Islamic theocracy. The focal point this week is the no-holds-barred battle between proxies for the United States and Iran - Israel and Hezbollah. I can't help but think that the U.S. first fell into the trap of invading Iraq, under the very wrong theory of the neocons that we could sweep Saddam out and pour in instant democracy. What we have instead is a no-win situation that gets worse by the day for democratic ideals, and just keeps getting better for the Iran-supported extremists. I also think that Israel walked into a set-up. They, too, are in a no-win situation that is getting worse by the day. No matter what Hezbollah does, they will come out the winners, even if they lose (which I now think is not very likely).

Iraq and Lebanon are the battle fields where radical Islam is writting a different history than any of us in the West imagined. They are showing that the United States and it's proxies are over the hill and in decline. They are winning the public relations war, and growing in strength with every day. We can't beat them with our kind of military and our kind of strategies (see the excellent article in the July 30 NY Times about network warfare, or net war, by Thom Shanker).

It's easy to see the Israel-Hezbollah war as just another chapter in the long Middle East conflict over the plight of the Palestinian people. But reality isn't that simple. The goal of Hezbollah/Iran isn't Palestine replacing Israel; the goal is regional dominance, replacing existing governments in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other Arab countries with Iranian-type theocracy. Viewed in this way, Israel is suddenly not just in a battle for its life, but a battle for the future of democracy.

Quite frankly, as I've put this together this week, it has scared the shit out of me. I hope the realization of the stakes in Lebanon scare you too, scare you enough to take a look at the bigger picture and not focus on the minute-by-minute pictures of the pain.

ISRAEL, LEBANON, TERRORISM, THE WORLD

OK, full disclosure first so there are no questions about my potential biases: I am a secular Jew, second generation American, with relatives living in Israel, and I've been to Israel twice. I'm not a knee-jerk "Israel can do no wrong" supporter; I'm often critical of Israeli government policies and actions. I believe strongly that Palestinians should have sovereign lands (Gaza, West Bank) and self-government. I don't like the settlement movement that has taken land in the West Bank. The security wall bothers me, but I understand the need for it.

I also try to look at every situation objectively, searching out different opinions and information that might give me insights into the truth behind an issue.

So, with those caveats out of the way, you can now "read my opinion;" however, I have to warn you, my opinion on this issue is dynamic and changes daily in subtle ways.

I agree that Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has the right to defend itself from attacks. Israel has exercised this right continuously in response to attacks within it's borders by a variety of terrorist groups. (Note: I don't buy the "freedom fighter" tag for terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, al Quaida and their ilk - they are murderers and criminals.) Hezbollah has been firing missiles into Northern Israel for several years since Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000, and I think Israel has shown remarkable restraint during this time. The recent cross-border incursion by Hezbollah militia, and the increased intensity of missile launches into Israel was an escalation by Hezbollah, one that was condemned by a large number of governments, including many Arab states.

Some facts are in order here:
1. U.N. Security Council Resoultion 425 established the "Blue Line," internationally recognized as the border between northern Israel and southern Lebanon.
2. Israel completed it's withdrawal from Lebanon, in respect to the Blue Line, in 2000.
3. U.N. S.C. Resoultion 1559, adopted in September, 2004, called on Syria to withdraw it's forces from Lebanon, and for all Lebanese militias, including Hezbollah, to disband.
4. Syrian troops completed their withdrawal from Lebanon in April, 2005. Hezbollah has not disbanded, and continued to fire missiles into Israel.
5. Hezbollah has an arsenal of at least 10,000 missiles in Lebanon, supplied to them by Iran and Syria.
6. Both Hezbollah and the Lebanese government refer to Israel as "the enemy."
7. A remaining point of contention between Israel and Lebanon - Hezbollah is the Shabaa Farms area that is under the control of Israel. Lebanon claims the area; however, the United Nations, and even Israel agree that the area is part of Syria. (As an aside, Syria does not recognize the independence of Lebanon, Jordan or Israel, by law, considering all of them to be part of "Greater Syria.")

So, with the above facts in mind, one begins to understand the incredible complexity of the situation. Clearly, the intelligence agencies of the U.S. and the European nations knew that thousands of missiles were being shipped into Lebanon to Hezbollah forces by air, ship and road. And yet, everyone seems to have turned a blind eye to these activities. With this understanding, it seems reasonable for Israel to bomb the Beirut airport, port facilities, roads and bridges to stop or slow the resupply of weapons to Hezbollah. It is also understandable that Israel would destroy fuel depots to make it more difficult for Hezbollah to fuel the vehicles that move these weapons around the country. It is also reported in the Western press that Hezbollah has many of their weapons positioned in areas where people live.

The majority opinion from world governments seems to be that, while Israel has the right to defend itself, it should show restraint. While I agree with that in principle, I also understand that on-the-ground reality is very different during war.

One of the things that disturbs me most about this situation is the outpouring of hatred I'm seeing towards Israel by people in the United States, including many of my liberal friends. In my view, too many people are always too ready to blame Israel for every situation because they are "the oppressors," "occupiers," "agressors," etc. Certainly Israel has occupied territory "won" during wars with its neighbors. Many (not all) Israelis have contempt for or hatred of Arab people; even Arab Israelis are in many ways second-class citizens. And a number of the tactics used by the Israeli government and military forces have been questionable. But it is important to put all of this into the context of history and politics, and not rush to judgement unfairly.

I see Israel in a very tenuous position right now in terms of world politics, and in the court of public opinion. When attacked by Hezbollah, Israel did not have the option to appeal to the United Nations for resolving the conflict - just look at places like Darfur where people are still waiting, and dying, for the U.N. to do something. And while the U.S. and the European governments pay lip service to Israel's right of self defense, I think they are more than happy to let Israel deal with Hezbollah, and by proxy Syria and Iran, and take the political and public relations heat for these military actions.

Finally, to those Americans who are so quick to lambast Israel, let me pose a scenario. Let's say that a group of extremist members of a political party in Mexico or Canada, or of an Indian Tribe with sovereign treaty lands inside the U.S., crossed their border and attacked a U.S. Army base, and then started firing missiles into U.S. towns and cities. Would we, the U.S., have the right to defend ourselves? And what would "restraint" look like on our part? If recent history is an example, let's say Afganistan following the attacks on September 11th, I think the U.S. would bomb someone back to the Stone Age - in a heartbeat.

Some key readings for your enjoyment:

Good summary of issues re: UN Resolutions 425 and 1559 in Wikipedia


The Innocent Bystander Myth, by Evelyn Gordon in the Jerusalem Post (jpost.com)


Disastrous Miscalculations, by Alon Ben-Meir in the Turkish newspaper Zamon (online edition)

THE MEDICAL/INSURANCE COMPLEX(ITY)

I read with interest in the Portland, Oregon newspaper this morning that Legacy Hospitals has agreed to settle a class action suit concerning the higher prices paid for services by the uninsured. As a recent surgery patient, I am witnessing first-hand the intricacies and complexities of the Medical-Insurance Complex.

As a consumer of medical services, I have several problem with the billing procedures of the medical providers and the insurance companies. My three main concerns are the following:

1. Consumers should know the cost of the services they are buying prior to purchase. I have made a point of asking what the cost of a medical procedure or service will be when I check in at the reception desk. I have never gotten an answer, except a couple of times when the receptionist did me a favor and called someone to ask. Medical services might be the only commercial enterprise for which consumers agree to a purchase without knowing the price they will be paying.

2. I won't pay for something without first seeing an itemized bill. The typical process for the expenses related to my surgery has been that I never get a bill from the medical service provider (there have been 1 or 2 exceptions). Instead, I get an Explanation of Benefits from the insurance company showing how much was charged, how much the insurer will accept as a charge for the service (see number 3, below), how much the insurer will pay, and the balance left for me to pay. Then I get a statement from the medical provider for the amount the insurance company didn't pay. In many cases, I have received statements from medical companies (doctor groups or laboratories) that I have never heard of, and I have no idea what they did to or for me. After some investigation, I find that doctor so-and-so read an MRI, doctor such-and-such looked at my freshly removed tumor, and company xyz ran the CT scan. My message to these folks: "Send me an itemized bill so I know what you did and I'll think about paying you."

3. The pricing agreements of the Medical-Insurance Complex are amazing! My understanding is that every insurance company negotiates a price list with the providers on their list. This is truly amazing stuff. Here are some examples gleaned from the Explanation of Benefits documents I have received:
- Legacy Emanuel Hospital semi-private room (2 days, 1 night): $1,171; Great West Insurance "covered expense" (the amount they have negotiated): $175.
- Legacy Emanuel Hospital "hospital extras": $12,872; Great West Insurance covered expense: $1,225.68.
- Oregon Anesthesiology Group "anesth inpatient": $780; Great West Insurance "covered expenses" $572.
- medical supplies and equipment: $156; "covered expense" $69.11

The medical providers list the reduction in price on their bill (if you get one) as a discount or insurance allowance. I assume that patients without insurance pay the full meal deal, hence the class-action lawsuit.

Here is what I would like:
1. When I go for a medical service, I am told prior to receiving the service a) the cost to me of the service, and, b) the names of all providers who will be providing service and then billing me. The cost I want to see is the amount negotiated with my insurance company; this information is certainly in the medical providers computer databases.
2. An itemized bill from every medical service provider who provides services to me, not just a statement of the balance after insurance payments.

These are simple and reasonable requests for a consumer to make, and it would help get the Medical-Insurance Complex into line.

THE "GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM" COMES HOME

The Bush & Co. Global War on Terrorism - code words primarily for the on-going military action in Afganistan and the invasion/occupancy of Iraq - was upstaged this week by the arrest of seven wannabe terrorists in Miami. Were the arrests part of this "global war?" Well, the "global war" seems to be focused on al-Qaida, but these apparent home-grown bozos in Miami weren't associated with al-Qaida. They, like similar suspects arrested in England and Spain, seem to be disaffected youth who fall sway to internet-based terrorist preachings and see the United States as "infidels" and "devils."

"Left unchecked, these homegrown terrorists may prove to be as dangerous as groups like al-Qaida" according to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales reminds us that local, independent "cells," not any international organization, were responsible for the train station murders in Madrid and the subway and bus bombings in London.

The arrests in Miami were, as far as I can tell, the result of good criminal investigation work by local and federal law enforcement agencies. During the early days of the Bush War on Global Terrorism, there were a number of national security and law enforcement experts who went on record to say that a "war" was not the correct response to the events of September 11th. They urged the Bush administration to view the attacks of September 11th as criminal acts, not acts of war, and to use good, solid criminal investigation and enforcement work, the stuff our federal and local law enforcement agencies have long been good at, to identify, investigate and arrest terrorist criminals. The U.S., working closely with the law enforcement agencies of our allies around the world, could deal with international terrorist criminals. But this was not the Bush & Company plan.

So here we are, spending ever-growing billions of dollars on un-winable "wars" in Afganistan and Iraq, providing the best-ever training grounds for terrorists where they can learn murder and barbarism in real time against real people. The "Global War on Terrorism" is a sham, and it's a war that can't be won.

I'm proud of the law enforcement agencies that reeled in the seven men in Miami; this is the kind of anti-crime work we need, both in the United States and abroad. The British, Spanish, Canadians and many others seem to understand that local law enforcement is the front-line defense against terrorism (why Tony Blair hooked up with Bush remains a mystery to me). The ideology of "global war" in this country needs to be abandoned and replaced with good police work that fights crime.

I THINK I'VE SEEN THIS MOVIE BEFORE

It's sometime in the future. The setting is in a nation that has intrusive communication technology and a huge, hi-tech military. The majority of citizens live in either a) cramped, bustling, dangerous ground-level urban areas, or b) utopian conditions where everthing is seemingly perfect and the people are doped-up on government-sanctioned, government-supplied drugs that promote happiness and good sex. Meanwhile, the elites live somewhere above it all, kept safe by both government and their own security forces. Big business and government are one and the same, manipulated by the very wealthiest of the wealthy. The large TV screens everywhere stream fast-moving images of sexy women, fast cars and newsertainment. The leaders of the country fly in and out of important meetings via sleek black airships, being careful to only go where they have absolute control of their own safety. The President's image appears often on the large, ubiquitous screens, proclaiming; "We have always been at war with Eurasia" one day, and "We have always been friends with Eurasia" the next day. "Life is good" he often proclaims, "Go shopping," "We have a Plan," "Mission Accomplished." Those who dare to question this faux stability are whisked away by men in black.

Yes, it's a fairly common sci-fi theme that we've seen many times in the movies. And we've always thought, "gee, that could happen sometime in the future if we're not careful." Or maybe we've thought, "wow, that's highly unlikely, but it's good science fiction." But we now live in the age of Reality T.V., where real life and fiction are somehow blurred. The news isn't as much about news as it is about entertainment and ratings. Our elected leaders use carefully selected words to tell us things that are somewhere between reality and fiction, where they try to get us to accept fiction as reality, and reality as fiction.

Why do I feel more and more that I'm living in this movie I've seen before? I see the President on TV and it's just like a scene from some sci-fi film. He sneaks in and out of some "New Democracy" that he's created, but he's really sneaking in and out of a high-security "Green Zone" fortification so he and his elite followers can meet with other elites to spin up some new "realities" to feed to the big screens.

So what's the difference between the movie and the reality? Well, for one thing, the movie always has a hero, someone with vision, a mission, and something called "leadership." Neo, Snake Pliskin, Mad Max, some other schlub-turned-hero who can differentiate between fact and fiction, and has the balls to do something about it. (OK, these are all male gender references, so I'll include AeronFlux, Princess Leah, etc.) The only problem with this script is that these characters are able to turn things around using violence, and their incredible ability to be shot at ten billion times without ever being hit, while killing ten billion of the enemy single-handedly.

The point of all this is that we're in The Movie We've Seen Before, and we desperately need to find a new ending. We need a citizenry that is informed and can differentiate between fact and fiction. We need a citizenry that casts more votes in real elections than they do for American Idol. And we need real leaders with real ideas who believe in truth and justice to point us in a better direction.

I don't watch reality TV because reality itself is bad enough. But honestly, as I look around me every day, I wonder how I got cast in The Movie I've Seen Before.

IMMIGRATION, FARMWORKERS, POISON CHEMICALS

The lead editorial in the June 15, 2006 Oregonian newspaper was about the EPA finally phasing out the use of Guthion, a pesticide known to cause serious health risks to farmworkers. Guthion has been one of the most widely used pesticides in Oregon's fruit orchard industry. The Oregonian editorial chastises the EPA for waiting so long, likely the result of agriculture industry lobbying pressure. Right on.

The Oregonian editorial begins with: Imagine that the federal government learned that thousands of middle-class workers, say high-tech employees, were regularly exposed to a chemical known to cause vomiting, seizures, paralysis, loss of mental function and death. Would the government wait more than four years to order a liesurely phase-out of its use? Of course not, but that is exactly what the government has done in the case of farmworkers, the editorial continues.

Good point, but the rest of the story wasn't told. The large photo of a farmworker accompanying the editorial shows a man who is most likely of Mexican or Latino origin. According to the National Center for Farmworker Health, Inc., of the more than 3 million migrant and seasonal farmworkers in the U.S.A., 81% are foreign born. Of these, 95% were born in Mexico, 2% in Latin America, 1% in Asia, and 1% in other countries. The estimates of the number of migrant and seasonal farmworkers and their dependents in Oregon are: 1990 - 128,564; 1993 - 147,245; and 2000 - 103,453.
(http://www.ncfh.org/docs/fs-Migrant%20Demographics.pdf)

Although the Oregonian editorial was about EPA regulation, or non-regulation of harmful chemicals, it is also an important story in the on-going debate about illegal immigrants to the United States. The numbers presented above debunk the lie that immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans - you don't see American workers clamoring for low-paying, high-risk farmworker jobs. The agricultural industry, like a number of others, is very dependent on a cheap labor force that is willing to move around and follow the work, a labor force consisting of many workers who don't get paid well, don't get health care benefits, and who can be "disappeared" back to Mexico if they make any trouble.

So yes, the Oregonian is correct that the EPA has been lax, and has been guilty of classism - I would say racism - in choosing who to protect from exposure to harmful chemicals. It's an outrage, and it is really an important part of the larger conversation about who gets to reap the benefits of being American. As a citizen of Oregon, it concerns me that somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 of my neighbors are treated differently by the government because they are, after all, immigrants, and possibly illegal immigrants at that. This is not acceptable.

THE IN-AND-OUT PRESIDENT

President George W. Bush made a surprise visit to Baghdad the other day (actually, as The Guardian so rightly points out, he visited the Green Zone, not Baghdad). Our President slipped in, spent about 5 hours, and slipped out. Mission Accomplished.

In-and-Out is the M.O. of this President. Yesterday President Bush did an In-and-Out in the Seattle area to appear at a Republican fund-raiser (he raised $800,000) attended by the wealthy elites of Microsoft world. In - spend three hours - Out. Mission Accomplished.

The day after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, President Bush left his Texas ranch and flew directly to - San Diego - where he appeared at (can you guess?) a Republican fund-raising event. He then flew back to D.C. to check on the hurricane situation. In-and-Out. Mission Accomplished.

Oh how we yearn for the day when this President is just OUT.

LET'S RUN THIS ONE UP THE FLAGPOLE - AGAIN

"The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

This is the text of Senate Joint Resolution 12 - a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect the flag of the United States. It must be an election year again!

Yes, it is. And our dear Republicans are once again wrapping themselves in the flag. And guess what? Anyone, such as a Democrat, who votes against this resolution will therefore be unpatriotic, in favor of desecrating our dear flag. Oh brother - give me a break!!

A short anecdote. When George H.W. Bush (George I) was campaigning for the office of President, his first run, I attended a rally where he spoke, just out of curiosity (know thine enemy). As I and hundreds of others entered the outdoor space in a downtown Portland park, we were each handed a small paper U.S. flag on a wood stick that we could wave in the air as George pontificated. Once inside, I looked carefully at the setup. The back of the stage was a very large flag of the United States hung from above, and the end of our dear old flag, several feet, was lying crumpled up on the stage floor in the dirt and dust! This was the backdrop for George's speech. As we all left the park after the rally, almost all of the paper flags were tossed in trash cans conveniently placed at the exits. I sure wish we had a flag non-desecration amendment at that time so I could have made a citizen's arrest of George H.W. Bush and his campaign staff!

My wife and I have two flags of the United States of America; the first is a wool 48-star flag from the Navy ship on which my father-in-law proudly served during World War II; the second is a cotton/poly 50-star flag that we fly from our front porch on appropriate holidays. We fly our flag for two reasons: 1) we are proud to be Americans, and 2) we refuse to let the political right wing of this country claim that the flag belongs only to them. Since the election of George Bush II, I also display a small sign under our flag that says simply "Take Back America."

SAVE THE SALMON - OR NOT; SCIENCE VS. POLITICS

An interesting small article caught my eye this morning in the Oregonian: Council approves funds for sockeye run. It's a small story about trying to recover endangered fish, but it's also a larger story about the roles of science and politics.

Redfish Lake, Idaho, on the Snake River system, historically had adult sockeye returns of about 35,000 per year. But by 1991, when the population was listed as "endangered"under the Endangered Species Act, only a few adults returned to their native spawning lake. That same year, a Captive Brood Program was established that has captured returning adults and held them in hatchery facilities to produce offspring that could be re-introduced into the river system, thus preserving the genetic population and moving towards recovery. The captive brood program has been very successful, in terms of hatchery fish produced; however, it has been a failure in terms of restoring the run of sockeye in Redfish Lake.

I found the following numbers on the web: adult returns from hatchery produced sockeye were 7 in 1999 (the very first returns from the brood program), 257 in 2000, 26 in 2001, 21 in 2002, 3 in 2003, 27 in 2004. The total returns since 1995: 342 fish.

The Captive Brood Program spends at least $2 million annually to produce and raise 160,000 young sockeye salmon; I calculate that at approximately $88,000 per returned adult fish from the program. This week, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council approved $2.7 million for the program to increase the number of fish produced and raised to 260,000 per year.

Now here's the kicker, the Independent Science Review Panel, an 11-member panel of scientists appointed by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, recently recommended that the Council not fund the program anymore, and let the sockeye run go extinct. To quote the ISRP: Since there has been no response by the populations to recovery efforts in the Basin, it is clear that conditions outside the Basin determine the fate of these fish, and there is no evidence that these conditions are likely to improve significantly in the foreseeable future. Not only are these limiting conditions not likely to change, the fish themselves are likely to be changing as a result of present intensive propagation and rearing procedures so that their viability even under restored conditions is increasingly in doubt. Recovery of endangered species is important, but evidence presented here does not demonstrate that recovery is occurring. The view of the ISRP is that there is no scientific basis for continuing this program. (report)

So what's going on here? Why did the Council go against a very strong recommendation by their own scientific experts and put even more money into this program than was requested? I don't know the answer, but my guess is that Save the Salmon Industry politics have trumped science once again. Significant sums of money go to state agency and Tribal entities each year for salmon recovery programs. Pork barrel - fish barrel; they're both the same in the Pacific Northwest.

FEELING VERY PRIVELEGED, INDEED

Three days ago I had surgery to remove a tumor from my left parotid gland (one of the salivary glands, under the jaw/ear). Next week we'll get the biopsy report, but the statistics are good for it to be benign. I'm not a big fan of big medicine - that is, the industry operated by big insurance and big medical provider companies. When I owned my own company, a small (15 people) consulting firm, the cost of health care premiums increased every year, typically by 15 to 25%, a cost that became increasingly difficult to cover for my employees. And the insurance beaurocracy drives me nuts, to say the least.

But I've been sitting at home for the past 2 1/2 days feeling very priveledged to have available very fine medical care - the surgeon and his team were top notch, and the care, in general, has been good. (There have been some annoying experiences, but I can overlook these as just that.) My part of the costs will be 20% up to $15,000, at which point the insurance will cover 100%. With the annual deductable, my maximum out-of-pocket would be $3,500 - not exactly small change, but "rainy day" money will cover it.

I can't help thinking about people who don't have medical insurance. I can't help thinking about people who live in places where good medical care is not available. And I also can't help thinking about people who live where medical care is available, but only to those who can afford to buy it. I can't help thinking that I, my family and my friends, are all very fortunate and priveledged people.

The common thread of history is the juxtaposition of the rich and poor, the priveledged and unpriveledged, the powerful and the weak. In the context of history, including today, I'm among the rich and priveledged in this world, as most middle-class Americans are. This is not something to accept lightly.

A SIGN OF THE TIMES

On my way to a medical appointment today (don't get me started about the medical insurance industry!), the NPR radio station was live streaming the Senate confirmation hearing for Michael Hayden, the nominee for Director of the CIA. In the waiting room of the medical place, the big-screen T.V.s were set on CNN, which was live streaming the court hearing for the Duke students' rape trial, with interuptions to switch over to federal agents probing a farm field for the body of Jimmy Hoffa (yes, the one who disappeared 30 years ago).

One would think that the confirmation hearing for CIA Director, especially because the nominee runs the agency (NSA) that is spying on all of us U.S. citizens, would be of special interest to Americans and would be broadcast by a major television news channel. But I guess I'm wrong - I guess most Americans would rather watch the hearing about an alleged gang rape - maybe because it's so much like reality TV.

I think I'm almost ready to give up on my fellow citizens - maybe Bush & Company is exactly what we deserve!

AM I AN "AMERICA-HATER?"

No! Some readers, if there are any, might think that the preponderance of posts that are critical of the US government, and George Bush and his cronies, are an expression of my dislike or hate of America. Far from it. I write these because I think our country is great, and because I can say what I think under the terms of our Constitution.

So, in this post, I want to talk about what's good about America.

1. The American people - we are creative, friendly, compassionate (the R's don't own the word) and generally free-thinking people. We are generous when it comes to helping others, whether at home or abroad. We value the individual, we value education, and we value diversity. (By "we" I mean the majority.)
   
2. The American form of government - despite the many problems and issues that our form of government has, it is a system that attempts to represent the majority view, while recognizing dissenting views. Each citizen has the opportunity (I would like to think it's the responsibility) to be heard by way of her/his vote. We can criticize our leaders without fear of retribution. We have certain specified rights, guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights - and when anyone tries to trample on these rights, we have processes to correct them.
3. The natural beauty of our country - I am always amazed by the beauty of this country, no matter where I go. Oh sure, there are ugly places, despoiled by thoughtless industry, urbanization or other actions. But overall, we value the natural beauty of our land and have implemented laws to protect it and regulate actions that would ruin it. This isn't perfect, but because of our high standard of living and relative wealth, we choose to value our environment.
   
4. The sense of position in the world - This is a tough one to explain, but I think that as Americans, we tend to see ourselves as having some important role in the world because of our history, our democracy, the strength of our economy and the strength of our convictions. This is a two-way street (like everything else - it's dialectical), ripe for abuse; however, as a nation, we have had some shining moments of "good" in the world.

Don't get me wrong here - I'm not oblivious to reality - but there is something about America that makes us great. Are we the best country in the world? I don't believe there is such a distinction. There are many other wonderful countries, and I have never subscribed to the notion that the USA needs to be Number One.

The frustration and anger I often express in my posts is because I feel that, as a nation with the qualities I've listed above, we squander opportunities to be truly great. History will be the final judge of who we were and what we did during our time, and I'd like my descendents to be proud of our role in history.

WE ARE "NUMBER ONE" IN SOME THINGS

The internet is a wonderful tool for finding information. I heard something on the radio a few weeks ago that peaked my interest in the number of people in jail in the US vs. other countries, so I googled around and found the following:

"Over 9 million people are held in penal institutions throughout the world, mostly as pre-trial detainees (remand prisoners) or having been convicted and sentenced. About half of these are in the United States (2.03m), Russia (0.86m) or China (1.51m plus pre-trial detainees and prisoners in ‘administrative detention’)."

"The United States has the highest prison population rate in the world, some 701 per 100,000 of the national population, followed by Russia (606), Belarus (554), Kazakhstan and the U.S. Virgin Islands (both 522), the Cayman Islands (501), Turkmenistan (489), Belize (459), Bermuda (447), Suriname (437), Dominica (420) and Ukraine (415)."

"H o w e v e r, more than three fifths of countries (60.5%) have rates below 150 per 100,000. (The United Kingdom’s rate of 141 per 100,000 of the national population places it above the midpoint in the World List; it is the highest among countries of the European Union.)"

Source: World Prison Population List (Fifth Edition). Communication Development Unit, Home Office, London. 2003.

And in the USA... "Among the 1.4 million inmates sentenced to more than one year at year-end 2003, an estimated 44 percent were black, 35 percent white, 19 percent Hispanic and 2 percent of other races. The percent of inmates who were racial or ethnic minorities has changed little since 1995."

"As of December 31, 2003, one in every 140 U.S. residents was confined in a state or federal prison or a local jail."

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Press Release: U.S. Prison Population Approaches 1.5 Million. November 7, 2004.

For comparitive purposes:

US population by races: White = 75.1%; Hispanic = 12.5%; Black = 12.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000

Another topic I've always wondered about is the sale of weapons

World Weapons Sales

"Since 1992, the United States has exported more than $142 billion dollars worth of weaponry to states around the world. The U.S. dominates this international arms market, supplying just under half of all arms exports in 2001, roughly two and a half times more than the second and third largest suppliers. U.S. weapons sales help outfit non-democratic regimes, soldiers who commit gross human rights abuses against their citizens and citizens of other countries, and forces in unstable regions on the verge of, in the middle of, or recovering from conflict."

"U.S.-origin weapons find their way into conflicts the world over. The United States supplied arms or military technology to more than 92% of the conflicts under way in 1999. The costs to the families and communities afflicted by this violence is immeasurable. But to most arms dealers, the profit accumulated outweighs the lives lost. In the period from 1998-2001, over 68% of world arms deliveries were sold or given to developing nations, where lingering conflicts or societal violence can scare away potential investors."

Source: Federation of American Scientists. http://www.fas.org/asmp/fast_facts.htm#USArmsExports

So, we are, in fact, "Number One" in some things - makes you feel proud, eh?

JUST ANOTHER DAY (OF U.S. OBFUSCATION) IN IRAQ

I can't help it, this Iraq topic is just too compelling, too frustrating, to leave alone; like a scab that shouldn't be scratched. So here I am again....

The leading news stories this morning: 1) after sneaking into Baghdad on separate military transport planes (are they, for some reason, afraid to arrive publicly?), Rumsfeld and Rice met with the new President and other high officials of the Iraqi government - as they were leaving, the two intrepid democracy crusaders extolled the wonders of the fledgling Iraqi democracy ("Heck of a job, Jalal"); 2) the sister of the new Iraqi Vice President and her body guard were assassinated this morning - the new V.P.s brother had been assassinated last week; 3) seven car bombs exploded in Baghdad this morning; 4) Baghdad police discovered another 20 bodies of victims of sectarian violence.

Is anyone being fooled by the Bush claims of success in Iraq? Let's face it, this invasion and occupation is an unmitigated disaster for everyone: the U.S. military, the Iraqi people, the U.S. taxpayers, the future victims of terrorists who have cut their teeth in Iraq (talk about reality TV!!!). The "War on Terror" has been the "War of Error" from day one, and it's gone from worse to much worse.

If any of these Bush people, this "group of folks," has a single strand of moral fiber, he or she will stand in front of the American press and say "Yes, we didn't just screw this up, we screwed it up royally, and here's what we're going to do to try to fix it." But I won't hold my breath, and neither should you.

WHAT, ME BLOG?

I have not posted to this blog in over a month. I've thought about it a lot, I've vowed to post something, but I haven't. I remember thinking that I needed to write about the 3-year anniversary of the Iraq invasion; I also remember getting so bummed out about the 3-year anniversary that I just couldn't write. And the bummed-out-ness spread, like a creeping feeling of dread that overwhelmed me. Every day our press is filled with bad news from all over the world, and this is the highly touted 21st Century we all welcomed with such hope.

So I haven't written for over a month. I keep looking for good news hidden among the bad, and there is some. But then cold reality strikes. More murder. More genocide. More really bad shit from the mouth of our president-from-hell and his toadies. I know people who are so burned out by this stuff that they don't want to talk about it anymore - it's too depressing.

But here I am, posting to the blog about not posting to the blog. I have a lot to say. I'm going to do it. Every day. Sure.....

DIVESTMENT FROM ISRAEL - A GOOD CASE OF BAD THINKING

I try to read as much as I can, on all sides of the issue, concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I try to remain objective, recognizing that there are at least two sides to every story; this can be difficult but possible as a Jew by birth and culture. The primary difficulty is weeding out objective reasoning and criticism from hidden anti-semitism.

It's easy to dismiss the rantings of the Iranian President and others of his ilk as anti-semitism (as well as geo-political posturing). It is more difficult to understand the motivations of seemingly sincere people and organizations, ranging in ideology from the Presbyterian Church to the Green Party, both of which have called for divestment from Israeli companies and U.S. companies that do business with Israel. I attended a forum on divestment at which a representative from the national Presbyterian Church and a local Presbeterian minister spoke to different sides of the divestment issue. The person from national defended the divestment campaign on the basis of human rights; the local minister feared that the divestment campaign is based in anti-semitism, and argued against it from a variety of points.

The Israel divestment movement makes no sense to me, particularly for educated and even seemingly progressive people. I disagree with some of the tactics and decisions of the Israeli government, and I do support an independent state for the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank. I also think that there has to be a solution to the different claims on the City of Jerusalem. But all of the above has to be put into the proper historic and political context. Israel is a sovereign democratic country. It has been surrounded by self-proclaimed enemies since it's founding. Israelis are constantly under attack by terrorists, and occasionally by other governments. Israel is the only member of the United Nations that has never been allowed to serve on the Security Council. Most of Israel's neighbors, and many other countries have much worse human rights records than Israel. Israel has worked towards peace with it's neighbors and the Palestinian people for many years.

We are at an interesting turning point in this decades-long conflict. The Palestinians recently held a democratic election, and the majority choice for their government was Hamas, a terrorist organization that refuses to recognize the State of Israel and refuses to end terrorist attacks against Israel. I'm hoping to see a cry for divestment from the Palestinian Territories by the Presbyterians and the Greens - but I won't hold my breath!

The divestment campaign against Israel is misguided and dangerous. If it is not in itself anti-semitic, it certainly feeds anti-semitism. I can't believe that the majority of Palestinian and Israeli people want to remain in a conflict that benefits neither side, and only perpetuates hatred, fear, injustice and poverty. The majority of these people certainly have aspirations of peace and prosperity, and I believe these can be achieved through negotiation and compromise on both sides. Divestment helps no one; calling for an end to terrorism, military strikes, and the teaching of hatred is the best thing we can do at this time.

Memory Check

In all the reporting about the failures of the response to Hurricane Katrina, I have not heard an item that I distinctly remember: the first thing President Bush did after Katrina struck was leave the Crawford Ranch and fly to San Diego to give a fund-raising speech at a high-price Republican dinner. Am I dreaming this, or did it really happen? This demonstrates what really matters to this President.

THE CHENEY HUNTING ACCIDENT: ANOTHER ASSAULT ON CIVIL LIBERTIES

(Blogger's note: much has been written, and many jokes are being told about the accidental shooting by VP Cheney. This is an unfortunate accident, and I, for one, would like to see and hear more concern about the shooting victim - I hope he recovers without any long-lasting effects. With this said, below is my contribution to the pile-on!)

A.P. (Avian Press) - New York. While the main-stream media focus on the handling of Vice President Dick Cheney's hunting accident by the White House, an important part of the story remains untold. Using information obtained from confidential sources, this reporter has uncovered the tip of a growing controversy that threatens the civil liberties - of wildlife.

VP Cheney's office has focused the story of the shooting on the accidental nature of the event, and the process of making the news public. This deliberate strategy has led reporters and the public away from the real story, a bird's-eye view of the unbridled power of the Executive Branch of the US government.

What we have uncovered so far are these facts: 1) VP Cheney's shot hit Mr. Harry Whittington, a prominent Texas attorney and Republican; 2) the intended victim, who we'll call Mr. Quail because his real name has not been revealed, was not injured by the shotgun blast; 3) Mr. Quail was, however, taken into custody by the Secret Service and his whereabouts remain unknown.

The ACLU (Avian Civil Liberties Union) has assigned a prominant left-wing lawyer, John Covey, to investigate the disappearance of Mr. Quail. There are indications that Mr. Quail has been deemed to be an enemy combatant, and has been flown to a secret facility that is disguised as a restaurant kitchen, for "de-briefing." "We know that "de-briefing" is a code word for interrogation by torture" stated Mr. Covey, who went on to explain that this type of interrogation typically involves plucking out the victims feathers, marination in strong spices, trussing, and applying intense heat to the body. "If the victim doesn't sing in a short time, his goose will be cooked" Covey said.

This reporter has also determined that the search for Mr. Quail by VP Cheney was part of an on-going covert operation being run from the Vice President's office, without oversight by any of the intelligence agencies. This is the reason that the Vice President did not have the required hunting tag from the State of Texas, he did not want public attention drawn to the covert operation. The covert operation is designed to infiltrate and kill the members of small cells of left-wing operatives known to exist under-cover (mostly under, we hate to say, bushes).

Based on the official story, it appears that Mr. Whittington was collateral damage in the Cheney War on Quail.* However, many questions remain unanswered. Is there a connection between the shooting of a right-wing lawyer and the capture of a left-wing operative? Was the shooting a cheap shot or a cheep shot? What is the relationship between bird flu and bird flew? Is it a coincidence that a Vice President under a Bush President attempted to kill someone with the same name as a Vice President under a previous Bush President? And why are individuals like the intended victim always found under bushes, anyway? These questions aren't just for the birds!

We hope to answer the above, and related questions, as our investigation continues.


* this line is credited to a letter-to-the-editor in The Oregonian

AVIAN FLU: A NAGGING MEMORY

We've watched with great interest and trepidation the slow advance of avian flu in Asia and now Europe. Recently, the New York Times ran an article about the migratory patterns of birds, which included a map showing the major bird migration pathways on Earth (see URL at end). One point of the article was that the major migration patterns are north-south, and therefore transmittal of avian flu to North America from Asia and Europe is not highly likely. This article, however, brought a forgotten memory flooding into my thoughts.

In the early 1970's, as a graduate student of ecology at the University of California, Irvine, I helped organize a symposium series for the department. The United States had recently bombed Cambodia as part of the war in Viet Nam, and many of us were very active in the anti-war movement. I was aware that the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), one of the oldest and most prestigious professional science organizations in the United States, had been lobbying the government to look at the ecological and health impacts of herbicide spraying (Agent Orange and others) in Viet Nam. A very outspoken member of the AAAS on this issue was Professor E. W. "Bert" Pfeiffer, a wildlife ecologist at the University of Montana. I arranged for Dr. Pfeiffer to present at our symposium series.

Bert looked like a typical academic when I picked him up at the airport, with his tweed sport coat and tie. His presentation to the assembled students and faculty began by recounting how the AAAS had urged the government to look at herbicide effects, and how he and another AAAS members had finally traveled to Viet Nam to gather information. As his talk continued, he grew more agitated and empassioned, describing the magnitude of aerial spraying and the resulting damage to crops and forests (the U.S. had a massive defoliation campaign attempting to deny food to the enemy, as well as remove forest cover so enemy movements could be seen from the air). Bert also talked about the use of nerve gas and other chemical agents by the U.S., and finished his talk by calling for the indictment of President Nixon, Secretary of War MacNamara and others as war criminals.

Following the presentation, we had a reception for Dr. Pfeiffer, and a chance for questions and discussions. At one point, the discussion settled on the relationship between academia and the government, particularly whether or not academics should question the purpose of federal research grants from the Department of Defense. Dr. Pfeiffer told the following story:

Bert and other progressive academics obtained unclassified information about research grants awarded by the Department of Defense. They primarily had a long list of research project names, principal investigators and their institutions, and sometimes brief descriptions of the research. Bert said that the list was long and the research topics extremely varied. Many projects seemed not to have much relevence to national defense, but some chilling scenarios could be put together from the lists.

Although the relationships between research projects at different institutions could only be imagined, the very existance of the funded research raised interesting questions and implications. For example, the DoD grant lists had research projects concerning: influenza viruses, insect parasites of birds, insect vectors of viruses, and songbird migration patterns. Each project was at a different academic or government institution and had no apparent relationship to the others. But why, Bert asked, would the Department of Defense be funding these disparite projects? One could imagine, he explained, that certain insect parasites of birds could be infected with a virulent strain of influenza virus, and the parasites introduced into a population of song birds that migrates to a region of central China - the result, we could start a flu epidemic in China (or elsewhere) and nobody would know where it came from!

Now, I'm generally not a conspiracy theorist, but I have learned not to trust governments just because they tell us we should. The scenario described above sounds far-fetched, but on the other hand.....

I googled E.W. Pfeiffer today, and learned that he died in 2004 at the age of 88. The 2004 obituary on the U. of Montana web site read, in part:

Pfeiffer was a longtime faculty member who was known internationally for his studies on the environmental consequences of weapons of war, including the radioactive fallout from nuclear testing and the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam.

His obituary in the Washington Post last April read, in part: "Dr. Pfeiffer tirelessly warned about dangers associated with radioactive fallout from nuclear testing, long before most scientists considered it an issue. He also studied miliary use of chemical defoliants on the environment and warned the 'Winter Soldier Investigation' of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War in 1971 about their dangers."

NY Times article: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=990DE2DC1030F932A35752C0A9609C8B63

COULD WE HAVE A DICTATOR IN THE USA?

During a lively conversation over dinner the other night, a friend asked if any of us thought that it would be possible for a dictator to gain power in the U.S. This question was in the context of our discussion about the Bush administration and FSA spying activities on U.S. citizens. The consensus was that our Constitution has mechanisms and structures to prevent such a take-over.

But the question got me thinking. What is a dictator, and how does one get into power? Could it happen here (in the U.S.?)

The Wikipedia definition of "dictator" contains the following:
In modern usage, dictator refers to an absolutist or autocratic ruler who governs outside the normal constitutional rule of law.
Dictators often acquire power in a coup d'etat, or by suspending the existing constitution. Ordinarily democratic nations may temporarily give dictatorial power to leaders during a state of emergency.
In states with democratic traditions, dictators frequently emerge in times of war, or during an economic or social crisis. Most notably, Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitlar in Germany, achieved office by democratic means and once in power gradually eroded constitutional restraints.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator)

While I don't think George Bush is a Dictator, I do think there are imaginable scenarios within which he, or a future President, could assume such a role. Consider the following:
1. The last two presidential elections in this country, particularly the 2000 election, left many citizens wondering if the election was really "stolen" through questionable balloting and voting tactics (e.g. Florida), and legal manuevering in the State and Federal courts. While not exactly fitting the definition of coup d'etat, the 2000 election was a constitutional crises of major proportions.
2. The recenly exposed spying by the NSA on U.S. citizens, conducted outside the legal framework of the Foreigh Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), is being defended by President Bush as within the executive powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief. Many legal scholars and government officials, including Republicans, do not agree with Bush on this legal point. In essence, Bush is saying that the constitutional protections do not apply in his War on Terrorism.
3. President Bush took the United States to war (invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation) based on lies, and there is strong evidence (the Downing Street Memo) that the decision to invade Iraq was made first, and the intelligence information ginned up to support the decision.
4. President Bush, as Commander-in-Chief, has supported the torture of prisoners, holding of prisoners, including U.S. citizens without due process, the transporting of prisoners to other countries for torture. All of these actions are done under the cover of the "War on Terror" and protecting U.S. citizens from terrorists and "evildoers."
5. The Bush adminstration has paid journalists to publish or "report" government propaganda.
6. In December 2005, the Congress passed an anti-torture amendment, which President Bush reluctantly signed. At the same time, however, Bush specified, in an e-mailed "signing statement" that he would construe the law "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president to supervise the unitary executive branch and as commander in chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on judicial power" with the objective of "protecting the American people from further terrorist attack." In other words, Bush will ignore the law if he sees fit to do so.

So, does all of this mean that George W. Bush is a dictator? No. But it gives us a glimpse of how a President can erode the authority and protections of the Constitution of our country and usurp a greater amount of power than we might want him (or her) to have.

And what will happen the next time there is a terrorist attack in the United States? What if terrorists set off a nuclear device, or unleash a chemical or biological weapon that results in very wide-scale loss of life and tremendous economic disruption? The President might declare a state of emergency in such a situation, declare martial law, suspend specific constitutional rights, etc., all in the name of protecting us from further terrorist attacks.

We are inching in that direction. It could happen here.

FROM MUNICH TO DAMADOLA

Item 1. In a December, 2005 article "Up in the Air" in The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/051205fa_fact), journalist Seymour Hersh discussed the future of the US war in Iraq. Based on extensive interviews with government/pentagon and other sources, Hersh described how US ground troops would be withdrawn starting in 2006, and US air strikes would be increased. These air strikes, aimed at targets identified by US or Iraqi ground sources, would be carried out by both manned and un-manned aircraft.

Item 2. The Steven Spielberg film "Munich" is a chilling look at the part of the spy game focused on assassination, in this case the Israeli retaliations targeting leaders of the Black September group who were responsible for planning the abduction and murder of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. This is a purposely brutal film that raises a number of important questions about government policy that are very relevant to the "war on terrorism" being waged today. Assassination is not as straight forward as it might seem, we find in the film. How do we know who the "enemy" really is? What do we do about innocent people killed along with the target? Is our cause more just than theirs? How are the agents of other governments, including our "friends" involved, and for what political reasons? Do our retaliatory actions result in more retaliations by the enemy? And in the end, does the elimination of enemy individuals do any good, or are they merely replaced by others who are as bad or worse, and their deaths result in more recruits to their cause?

Item 3. On January 13, 2006, the U.S. CIA, using an un-manned aircraft, destroyed one or more houses in the village of Damadola, Pakistan. The target was Ayman al-Zavahiri, the number 2 leader of al-Qaida. Initial reports were that no al-Qaida were killed, but that members of a family, including women and children, were the victims. A confusing series of news reports followed:

January 18 - 4 or 5 "foreign militants" were killed in the raid (source: the provincial government)
January 19 - 2 senior members of Al Qaeda and the son-in-law of al-Zawahiri were killed (source: two Pakistani officials)
January 20 - there is "no tangible evidence" that al-Qaida operatives were killed (source: the Prime Minister of Pakistan)

The CIA has no comment. Other US officials, however, were trotted out and had things to say:

"We apologize, but I can't tell you that we wouldn't do the same thing again. We have to do what we think is necessary to take out al-Qaida, particularly the top operatives." (Sen. John McCain)

"It's a regrettable situation, but what else are we supposed to do?" (Sen. Evan Bayh)

In other words, we'll just keep doing what we do, and if innocent people are in the way, we'll apologize, say it's regrettable, and that's that!

----
This is not a new issue; clandestine operations to eliminate specific "targets" have gone on throughout history. But that doesn't make it right. Just as it can be argued (and is, by many experts) that torture is not an effective interrogation method, so can it be argued (and it is) that assassination is not an effective method to fight terrorism.

And what constitutes "terrorism" anyway? If the U.S. drops bombs on a village and kills a bunch of civilians, thus terrorizing the local population, does this fit the definition? Now before you jump all over me on this one, try googling "define terrorism." Spend a few minutes reading a variety of cites - and I'm sure you'll see, as I did, that the definition of terrorism depends on who is defining it.

I hope this posting is food for thought. Do we, citizens of the United States, support state-sponsored assassination? Is it OK to drop bombs on villages, in our name, and brush off the deaths of innocent people with simple platitudes and shoulder shrugs? Will we easily condone the continuation of the Bush war in Iraq as an air war, in which bombs and missles are dropped/flown into houses because someone thinks an evil-doer might be inside?

Think about it.

FIRST POST OF 2006

Rain. Lots of it. Hillsides and houses responding to the pull of gravity on the saturated soil of steep slopes. Street corner ponds formed where fall leaf covered catch basins are unavailable to stormwater runoff. Streams and rivers, cappuccino-colored and straining to be reacquainted with their floodplains, provide headlines for the local news.

It's winter. It's Oregon. You've got to love it!

JUST SAY MERRY CHRISTMAS?

I recently saw an interview on CNN news with a woman who, with her husband, have started Operation: Just Say Merry Christmas. They sell, via the internet, a charming green and red bracelet that says: "Just Say Merry Christmas." Here's what their web site says:

"The enemies of Christmas have succeeded in making Christians feel as if we are bad and intolerant to wish someone a "Merry Christmas". This is political correctness run amok. We have reached an all time low point in our nation's history when human sensibilities are elevated above offending Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. It is long past the time for Christians to stand firm in our faith."

OPERATION: JUST SAY MERRY CHRISTMAS is a campaign designed to encourage Christians nationwide and around the world to PROUDLY proclaim The Christ Child as the center of the Christmas Season once again.

In an effort to help turn the tide, we have created this Christmas wristband to help emphasize once again that the central focus of this season is the Birth of the Christ Child. It is our hope that by wearing the wristband you will join us to remind others that to celebrate the true meaning of this Holy Season.....

JUST SAY "MERRY CHRISTMAS!"

Wow! It sounds like there are some evildoers out there waging war on Christians. I've seen some of these battles - large signs in store windows proclaiming "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons Greetings." I've done it myself, saying "happy holidays" to people I know. Am I, therefore, an enemy of Christmas?

It's quite simple. We live in a society where not everyone is Christian. Saying "Merry Christmas" to Jewish, Muslim, and Buddist friends and relatives just doesn't cut it. Saying those words to Christian friends is very appropriate. So what's the problem?

The problem is that, once again, the Christian right is trying to make sure that we all know that the U. S. of A. is, in their minds, a Christian country. After all, isn't Christmas a national holiday? Well, yes it is, and that's another topic altogether. They want the right to display their religious icons on public property. They want their religious songs sung in public schools. They hate the fact that there is a separation of church and state in this country.

It's perfectly fine with me if people want to say Merry Christmas to each other. I think it's great if they want to put out huge displays of nativity scenes in front of their churches. But don't call me an enemy of Christmas if I don't want to see nativity scenes on the lawn of the county courthouse or city hall. And when I'm out doing my Chanukah gift shopping, I'd rather shop at a store that greets me with "Happy Holidays" because I know they want my money, too.

Isn't it interesting that Christmas has become the largest commercial season of the year? And it's not just our Christian friends who are out there spending - most of us get into the gift thing in December. And the Operation: Just Say Merry Christmas folks? Well, the woman interviewed on CNN and her husband own a Christian book store, and she said that they have sold about 200,000 of these wrist bands, at $2 each. A quick look on the internet shows that if you order large quantities, you can get these things for pennies each. Ah yes, this has been quite a Christmas for mom and pop at the bookstore, and a telling look at "the true meaning of this Holy Season."

So, in the spirit of respect and courtesy to all, not political correctness, I'll wish you all a very happy holiday season, and a very wonderful new year.

HAVE I LOST MY MIND?

The comment I most often receive from family and friends who occasionally read this blog is: "Have you lost your mind???" Their concern is that the Men in Black will come knocking (or breaking through) my door because of the political things I write to this blog. This reaction, based on a growing nervousness about the lawlessness of the Bush administration, has recently been heightened with the news that President Bush has authorized spying on U.S. citizens without going through the appropriate legal procedures.

The Bush administration has demonstrated to the world that any dissenting voice must belong to a non-patriot, a traitor, or someone who is comforting the enemy. Even worse, if my writings are percieved to be those of a terrorist, or a suspected terrorist, or maybe someone who maybe resembles a terrorist, or maybe someone who is neither a terrorist nor resembles a terrorist but is someone who could be, maybe, mistaken for one of these...then I might get a free plane ride to some foreign country for a lengthy vacation during which I will be "debriefed," and may never be heard from again.

So maybe this should scare me away from writing anything political to this blog. Not so - this is exactly why it is even more important for me to keep posting my political rants. This is, after all, still the United States of America.

So, to the Men (and Women) in Black who are monitoring this site (and thank you for being among the few):

I am posting below, for your review, Amendments I and IV of the Constitution of the United States. Please read this carefully. Please forward it to your superiors, including Porter Goss, Ronald Dumsfeld, Darth Cheney, Alberto Gonzales and George W. Bush, and suggest that they read it, too.

AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

AMENDMENT IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Stand up for democracy - speak truth to lies!

IMPEACH BUSH FOR BLOW JOBS!

The precedent was set by the Congress of the United States when they impeached President William Clinton for lying about blow jobs in the White House. So let's discuss lying about blow jobs in the White House by the current President.

George W. Bush has lied to the Congress and the American people about numerous blow jobs in the White House:

- he blew the response to the September 11 attacks and the outpouring of support from around the world
- he blew, and continues to blow the "War on Terror"
- he blew the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq
- he blew American credibility in the world for government by law
- he blew the reputation of the United States for ethical and lawful treatment of prisoners
- he blew the U.S. economy
- he blew the systems of caring and support for the poor, the sick, children and elders
- he blew the response to Mother Natures big blow jobs in the Gulf States
- he blew the controls on secretive government intelligence agencies spying on American citizens
- and the list is endless....

President George W. Bush is the biggest blow job ever to occupy the White House. He has lied about everything listed above, and more, and he continues to provide lip service to these lies as they build towards a ruinous climax.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!! Let's get rid of this President and his Axis of Weasels once and for all. Every citizen in this country should demand the immediate initiation of impeachment proceedings by the Congress.

ENVIRONMENTALISM GONE WILD

I saw or heard a few things last week that got me thinking about environmentalism as a good example of single-issue thinking. It's not, of course, the only example of this mind set.

Bumper sticker: Friends don't let Friends eat Farmed Fish

This sentiment stems, I think, from the fact that many fish farming operations pollute their environments because of feed and fish wastes that are discharged to or accumulate in surface waters. This is a problem. The other side of the coin, however, is the steady stream of scientific and news reports about the depletion of fish resources world-wide resulting from increasing fishing and deteriorating habitat. There is also some concern about the future impacts to fisheries of global climate changes resulting from human-induced impacts to the atmosphere.

Fish and seafood protein is an important source of nourishment for the human population on this planet. It seems obvious that the oceans won't be able to meet the ever increasing demands of our growing population, and farming of fish and seafood species will become an increasingly important component of the food supply. Think about it; humans used to subsist on wild plants and animals, but we now rely mostly on farmed plants and animals for our meals.

So, instead of keeping our friends from eating farmed fish, we should insist that the fish farming industry develop methods that are sustainable and do no further harm to the environment.

Radio and newspaper ads: You Can't "Stand Tall" to Protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge when you Stoop to Vote for Oil Drilling in a Budget Deal

We can thank the Sierra Club for this ridiculous ad campaign against Oregon Senator Gordon Smith. Smith bucked the Republican Party and the White House when he refused to toe the party line that the ANWR should be opened to oil drilling. But in a tough vote last week, he voted for a budget deal that he thought would help protect social service funding, even though a rider was added to allow drilling in the ANWR. Smith explained this decision in an Op Ed piece in the Oregonian, stating that he is not a single-issue representative, and that he has to weigh all the issues and make tough choices. I respect Smith for his integrity and tough calls. But the Sierra Club is a single issue organization, and they are now spending big bucks on these ads. Drilling in the ANWR is not the real issue here. The real issue is the U.S.'s obscene consumption of petroleum and our reliance on foreign oil. I'm sure the Sierra Club is working diligently to change the energy policy of this country, so why are they wasting money on an ad campaign that isn't focused on the real issues?

News Item: Environmental Groups criticize Oregon Department of Environmental Quality for being "bought off" by industry.

Using money provided by industry groups, the Oregon DEQ developed new standards for turbidity in Oregon streams and rivers that will in some situations allow higher turbidity levels resulting from discharges. Environmental groups are claiming that this will allow more pollution of Oregon surface waters, and that industrial dischargers bought themselves a new license to pollute. Well, the truth is a bit different. First, the old turbidity standards for Oregon were unrealistic and could rarely be met.

I've had a number of consulting jobs for which my staff and I monitored turbidity levels and found that the standard could not be met the way it was written. I participated in a meeting with the DEQ in the early 1990's to discuss the standard, and I wrote a short paper examining why the standard needed to be changed so that it could be met by dischargers, including municipalities (yes dear readers, when you flush the toilet, your wastes don't magically disappear). So I, for one, am glad to see a new set of standards that can be realistically met.

But - hang on - industry paid for the studies and the staff, so doesn't that make the new standards bad? I suppose it does, if you believe that everything is a conspiracy. User groups funding government services is not a new concept, it is sometimes the only way to get things done (particularly in Oregon where most of our legislators seem to be stuck in Neanderthal mode). So instread of assuming the worst, and assuming that any change in the status quo must be bad, let's take a critical look at the whole picture and keep our minds open to change.

A final word to environmentalists and all the rest of us "ists" out there: let's try not to be single-issue focused. Let's look at all sides, at the big picture, and make informed decisions. And, last but not least, eat lots of fish - it's good for you (as long as it's not loaded with mercury, pesticides or other toxins)!

"STAY THE COURSE" or "CUT AND RUN" ??

(Dear Readers: this post might be a bit long, so get another cuppa and settle in - thanks.)

Well, things are getting interesting on Capitol Hill. The debate of the day concerns the occupation of Iraq - should we "stay the course" or "cut and run?" The Axis of Weasels has brought in a damage control team to figure out how to win the war - no, not the war in Iraq, the public relations war being waged in the media. I just wish these guys would put as much effort into figuring out what to do with the mess they've created in the world.

A few quotes would be good here (thanks to Knight Ridder News Service):

The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. President Dubya, Nov. 11, 2005

We must be careful not to give terrorists the false hope that if they can simply hold on long enough, they can outlast us. Ronald Dumbsfeld, Nov. 15, 2005

Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein. What we're hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war. Darth Cheney, Nov. 16, 2005

Excuse me while I take a laugh break - this is just too much!

Well, I'm not a "politician," so I guess I can make all the charges I want and not be in the cross-hairs of the Bush team. The reality, as we all know, is that the invasion and occupation of Iraq had nothing to do with the "global war on terror;" in fact, this ill-concieved global blunder on the part of the U.S. has strengthened terrorism by providing a real-time training ground for jihadists where they can kill Americans (and everyone else in the neighborhood) or be killed trying, thus assuring their place in heaven.

Sending "the wrong signal to our troops" is exactly what the Bushies have been doing all along. And who has been using the war for "political plays" since it started? That's right, Team Bush. a central piece of the Bush re-election strategy was the war - I mean, after all, we have The War President in office (hey - turn down the fanfare, I can't hear myself think).

As for "giving terrorists false hope" - heck, those guys know that as long as Dumbsfeld is on the job, their careers are on solid ground. After all, he's the guy most responsible for sending in too few troops, who were equipment-poor, with no real strategy. (I guess sometimes you can't have the winning strategy you wish you had, you have to just go with the losing strategy you have.)

So, let me get to the point here: do we stay in Iraq or do we leave? My opinion: I don't know, but...

If you are really concerned and interested in this question, pick up a copy of the December 2005 The Atlantic magazine (maybe you can read it on-line). "Why Iraq has no Army" by James Fallows is a thoroughly researched piece of journalism that makes a compelling case for staying in Iraq, but changing the course. His thesis is that we need to change our military strategy to emphasize training the Iraqi forces. He provides details, based on interviews with U.S. military personnel and other knowledgeable people, about why our training efforts have failed so far, and what needs to be done to correct this. Fallows thinks that we can't simply pull out without risking a civil war and other consequences that would be worse than the present situation.

Then read "If America Left Iraq: the case for cutting and running" by Nir Rosen, a journalist who spent 16 months reporting from Iraq after the invasion. Rosen presents a compelling case for pulling out as soon as possible. The presence of American troops in Iraq, Rosen asserts, keeps the insurgency alive, and sets up a political tension between Sunnis and Shiites. Civil war in Iraq is already under way, he claims, because of the American presence. The role of al-Qaeda and foreign jihadists is an insignificant part of the insurgency, and the foreign jihadists are barely tolerated by the native insurgency as long as they are useful. Without American troops in the country, Rosen claims, the insurgency would end, and the foreigners would be rooted out.

So - which is it? Stay or Run? What's needed on Capitol Hill is a serious debate about staying in Iraq or leaving soon. If we stay, what's the Plan? How will we make this thing work? If we leave, how do we do that and what's the Plan?

The charges and counter charges raging in the headlines this week are nothing more than a red herring. The politicians are wasting time playing name calling, finger pointing games. The American public should demand - and in fact, I am demanding - that our elected representatives and the Administration have serious discussions about how to fix the Iraq mess. Both sides of the aisle need to tone down the rhetoric and get to the business at hand.

And if I believe they will do the above, somebody sell me a bridge!

"WE DID NOT HAVE TORTURAL RELATIONS WITH THOSE PRISONERS"

News Flash: In a statement oddly reminiscent of that by President Bill Clinton during the run-up to his impeachment, President George W. Bush made a defensive statement denying that U. S. personnel use torture on prisoners. Readers will remember President Clinton's insistent denial of having sexual relations with "that woman." The Bush statement, however, unlike Clinton's was almost instantly recognized as a bald-faced lie because of the concurrent actions of Vice President Dick "Darth" Cheney to place a provision in pending legislation that would allow torture of detainees in U.S. prison camps, jails, and other holding and interrogation facilities. With Bush's popularity and believability at an all-time low, his statement can only be seen as a result of extreme defensiveness in the face of the many failures of his administration.

In what the Administration most certainly saw as another blow to their credibility, the members of the former September 11 Commission issued a report of progress made by the Administration on recommendations made by the Commission a year ago - and their report is not good news for the Bush team. Although the Commission members had high praise for progress on a couple of goals, they were very critical of the lack of progress on many more. Among the goals that were reported as "unfulfilled" was that of developing a common approach with U. S. allies on the treatment of captured terror suspects. The Commission stessed that the Geneva Conventions regarding armed conflict should be applied to military prisons and secret detention centers. Commission member Richard BenVeniste referred to Iraq as the next terrorism training ground after Afghanistan, stating, "How much this trend has been fueled by the highly publicized reports of brutalization, humiliation and desecration cannot be measured accurately, but the flames of extremism undoubtedly burn more brightly when we are the ones who deliver the gasoline."

I guess when it comes to torture, it depends on what is is.

200 YEARS LATER

We went to the preview event for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Exhibit at the Oregon Historical Society the other night. The exhibit is a one-of-a-kind compilation of objects, written and graphic materials from a variety of private and public collections that document the amazing exploration that reached the Pacific Ocean 200 years ago.

It was early April of this year when Dave and I paddled up the Columbia River from Cathlamet on a perfect early spring river day. A grey sky, slight breeze, and occasional light rain accompanied us as we followed the tide upriver past the struggling river town. The land-water interfaces of big rivers tell many stories to those who choose to travel at the water's pace. Stories of commerce, stories of river life, and stories of history cling tenaciously to rotting pilings, sinking derelict vessels, and rotting wood shacks miraculously held afloat by algae-covered logs felled long ago in long-gone forests.

There is one reach of the river upstream of Cathlamet where the highway moves away from the river atop a high rock bluff and all of the usual and obvious signs of civilization disappear. A high waterfall cascades from the bluff, full from spring rains. Cedars, alders, ash and willow somehow manage to thrive near the water's edge, their branches pruned to a common height above the river according to the vertical range of the tides and seasonal water. The sound of river under the kayak and water-drip from the paddle is suddenly noticeable, until the waterfall overwhelms all other sounds with its constant roar.

I was momentarily overwhelmed by the realization that this is what the explorers of the Lewis and Clark expedition, and the native people they encountered, saw and heard every day, and the thought shackled me with anchor lines, pulling at me to linger longer, to stay for as long as possible in this time before time.

As we left the waterfall reach, and entered another section where the highway ran along the shore, I was gripped with a dread feeling of nostalgic despair - and this is truly the only way I can describe it. In the time-speck of two hundred years, this magnificent river ecosystem has been altered almost beyond recognition by and for humanity.

Don't misinterpret this feeling I had. I'm very much a realist, and I understand that the human animal changes its surroundings to suite its needs. But try as we might, we are still part of the natural world, and we still carry imprinted in our genetic code an understanding of what came before. To its credit, nature is a tenacious force; plant and animal species that evolved in this system for millennia prior to the modern time remember the old ways, and struggle to carry on as before. The derelict boats and sinking shacks along the river edge also seem to understand and embody this natural persistence., and yes, there are even those among us humans who remember the old ways.

DARTH CHENEY and the AXIS OF WEASELS

Once upon a time, in a galaxy uncomfortably close to here, the evil Emperor Dubya and his cadre of covert planners, known as The Axis of Weasels, led the former forces of good to the Dark Side. A leader among them was the dark Lord known as Darth Cheney, a master of the dark arts. The Lefti Knights and all others who were anything but Dark Siders were powerless against Darth Cheney and his brethren, falling like cord-wood before the Spin Sabers wielded by the Axis. Spin saber wielding was one of the darkest of dark arts, and the Axis had among it's brethren a Master of Spin, a small, yoda-like creature known as MachiaRovea. One by one, those who clung to the good side of the Force fell victim to the machiarovean Spin of the Dark Siders, castigated as traitors, accused of being soft on, or abandoning the War on Terror, ridiculed in the media until not one among them was left standing with any credibility. In this darkest of dark times, not one leader could be found who would stand and speak truth to lies. Instead, the remnants of the good side of the Force vowed to be more like the Dark Siders, a self-proclaimed brilliant strategy designed to win voters, particularly those "of faith." May the Farce be with us.

A simple fable for our times, perhaps. Fortunately, the Axis of Weasels appears to be crashing and burning by their own dark designs. Their play book, a blending of fairy tales (The Emperor has no Clothes) and prophetic novels (1984), is failing them. "We do not torture!" proclaims the Emperor while his top henchman, Darth Cheney, works to institute as law a green light for the use of torture.

Enough already. Let's work hard to hasten the fall of the Axis of Weasels. Let's get back to the core values that we all believe in, starting with democracy and truth. And let's remember to tell this fable to our children and grandchildren as a warning that democracy can't be taken for granted - it has to be protected from those who would destroy it.