gaia on politics

Annual Letter 2010 Halloween 10/31, Day of the Dead 11/1 (as life & politics overlap)

2010-10-31T19:02:00.000-07:00

Dear Friends,

As many of you know I try to send an annual salutation on or around Ground hogs day. Events this year put off my late winter effort. Groundhogs day falls between the winter solstice and the equinox, Halloween is also between solstice & equinox so this year I’m writing at the other end of a cycle. Halloween is also celebrated as the Day of the Dead, an opportunity to connect with departed loved ones. So call this my “day of the dead letter”.

The great sadness in my family’s lives is the death of Beth’s father. He died on Groundhogs day February 2nd 2010. He had cancer 3 years ago which was removed followed by chemo, but about a year ago it came back. With the cancers return his options were more limited.

Beth’s father Mel was a doctor and teacher. He was passionate about many things in his world. He held professional achievements; he stood up on the good side of many issues. He defended the little guy. I know this because more than once when he felt that I was getting a raw deal he would express outrage on my behalf. He had a creative mind and was a life-long learner. But what really matters is the love you leave behind. Mel was loved by his patients, his students and others he touched. But none were touched so deeply as his family.

I am lucky to have Mel’s daughter as life partner. She is a pillar of strength and integrity, kindness and love, intelligence and humanness.

His Grandsons Zev and Teo each carry some of Mel’s beauty in them. Zev is thoughtful and engaged in the political issues of the world, he likes listening to NPR and he gets Mother Jones Magazine which he enjoys reading. Teo loves math and has recently completed the calculation of 13 factorial (that’s the multiplication of all the numbers from 1 to 13) Both boys are interested in the unanswered questions of the universe. For instance Teo is presently working on a project about black holes. Both boys find their own ways of creativity. Zev is writing a fantasy novel and has already written over 30 pages.

There were several others who’ve touched my life who died this past year, I’d like to honor them all, I’ll just mention one here. Liz Johnson was my beloved friend in Portland, one of the founders of Hei Wa house, we were activist together with the progressive student network and we worked together at the Soy Plant cooperative. She died of ALS this fall. A great sadness is that she was mother of a boy named Will who is about Teo’s age. She was an activist and a part of the cooperative movement; she worked in several collectives and workers cooperatives. All of my friends who have passed away lived good lives.

Reflecting on my own life and its purpose I have found some touch stones for now.

Last fall and winter I was looking at my many and eclectic engagements and interests I got insight into some key areas where I would like to focus my professional clinical studies and expertise. I am interested in the health implications of plant based nutrition. Eat your vegetables! I am intrigued by the question what can be done to promote longevity (hint: eat your vegetables.) I want to learn more about the health implications of environmental toxins as well as ways of helping individuals recover or maintain health in the face of toxic exposure (the broccoli family, cilantro, garlic & onions in particular). Finally, I have come to realize that I am passionate about addressing mental health issues by non-pharmacological means. That all said my main job involves a good bit of endocrinology and a lot of work with food allergies.

In January I identified some larger project oriented goals for my life in the coming year. I find that when I set clear goals that I am passionate about I tend to move forward in my life. They included: 1) a goal for professional productivity which I met before I had initially intended to, 2) running for the board of Ann Arbor’s food coop, and now I am on the board, 3) some specific markers regarding the building of my co-counseling, emotional support community, also essentially met. 4) Finishing the initial processing of a collection of over 5000 books which are becoming a peace library in a space carved out of my garage. These books belonged to Rich Ahern a friend of mine who died in 2004. This also is approaching conclusion. I had a grand opening in August and only have a few more books to go.

There was a fifth goal; I had wanted to build an extension on the back of our house with an eye to extreme energy efficiency. This will give us a larger bed room and it will allow Zev and Teo to each have their own bed room. In the end this goal has been postponed to next summer, something to look forward to.

Now let me offer some thoughts on my views of life and death in the wide world:

One area where I have been pleased with Barak Obama where he has gone farther than I thought a sitting president could go, is around the issue of nuclear weapons. Articulating a goal of a nuclear weapons free world, signing a treaty reducing the US nuclear stock pile by one third, reshaping our nuclear policy to promise no use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against non nuclear nations who are adherents to the nuclear non proliferation treaty, publicly disclosing the number of nuclear weapons we have. All of these are commendable major policy shifts unprecedented in the history of the nuclear era.

Reflecting on these actions around nuclear weapons I was emotionally moved. I remembered the many things I did during the 1980’s to oppose nuclear weapons. This was when both Barak Obama and I were young men, each in our own way shaping our political world view. As I marched, met, organized, protested, and resisted the arms race in any way I could muster Obama was exposed to the milieu that I was helping to create. I feel great pride in this, but I don’t say this to boast, rather to remember that small acts by many add together to create the context where change can happen, sometimes only by planting seeds for 25 years later.

Now back to remembering the dead: Americans continue to kill in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen. Estimated of the victims of the war on terror [or rather the war of terror] range from over 100 thousand to near one million. While most of those deaths were in Iraq, as many as twenty thousand may have been killed in Afghanistan. Those numbers will climb as long as the US is there. Mr. Obama must take responsibility for those killed abstractly, but killed in war and assassinated are two different crimes. Drones and kill lists brings the charge of assassination to the office of the president.

Trading the risk of nuclear destruction for the new weapons of the empire is not enough. I should like to plant seeds for real world peace,

The other death count we should start is that of climate change victims. The Pakistani flooding this summer had already claimed 2,000 lives by August. It’s counterpart the drought in Russia is now threatening a global food crisis. This is just the start. A UN report on probable human refugees from global warming suggests a magnitude of 700 million. That’s 1 in every 10 people on the planet!

What can we do? Many things. On an international day of action (October 10th) the participation Ann Arbor organization focused on front yard gardens (local food requires less CO2 for transportation, and what could be more local than your front yard.) I was fortunate to have a volunteer give me a hand digging up my front yard and over 100 gardens were made that day.

Ann Arbor is not the only place where gardens are a sign of hope. This summer the US social Forum was held in Detroit and Beth and I got a chance to learn about the greening of Detroit. For years Detroit had become almost synonymous with despair, post industrial decay, skyrocketing unemployment even before the recession, high crime rates. In Detroit devils’ night was the name for the night before Halloween which was known for its rampant arson, but from those ashes come gardens, hundreds of them on vacant land throughout the city, and among the gardener’s mutual aid and cooperation. Now the urban gardening movement throughout the country is looking to Detroit. From decay comes rebirth.

So amidst some sadness and loss I’d like to wish you hope and a happy Halloween.

Suplemental spending and its discontents

2009-06-14T05:33:00.000-07:00

There is an expression that if voting could change things it would be illegal. While in little ways voting does change things, for the main foreign policy direction this slogan holds some water. While the momentum of a McCain white house might have been more belligerent in its prosecuting of war against Iraq and Afganistan, the direction would likely be the same, quagmire in Iraq and deeper in Afghanistan. While not overly surprised with the direction of the Obama Whitehouse, I am disappointed that at least we are not seeing some movement to draw down troops in Iraq.

The antiwar efforts that have been shunted into working for the Obama campaign last year, has also helped to elect several Democrats in congress and among them are many progressive Democrats who seem to be standing up against the war. The Question now is whether they will have the courage to resist the pressure coming from the administration. The word is that the Democratic party leadership is playing hardball against the Progressive Democrats demanding a vote and threatening to cut off access to the Whitehouse and to withhold support in the next election.

I wonder if the wars are becoming like abortion, a wedge issue for the Democratic party. For Republicans abortion is a heated issue for it’s conservative religious base but in spite of having control of 3 branches of government abortion is still legal. Abortion turns out the votes. Is the war the same kind of issue? Will we here in 2010 that we just need to elect a few more democrats and then they will stop the wars?

Since 2002 Democrats have been wooing the peace movement to support Democrats as the way to end the war in Iraq. This argument has worked and unfortunately probably at the cost of not enough action in the streets. Elements of the peace movement have at times acted in ways that I have felt misguided, for instance MoveOn.org people lobbying for the weaker of two pieces of legislation and in the end getting nothing. On the other hand there have been Democratic congress people who have been consistently good on the war. Their home is the Congressional Progressive Caucus of the Democratic. If ever the peace movement’s electoral strategy had a moment of truth it would be now.

It will be interesting to see if the Democrats who have opposed this supplemental spending bill will to continue to do so. We need to keep the pressure on. You can call the congressional switchboard at 202-224-3121 and then ask for your congress person and ask then to oppose the supplemental spending bill for Iraq, Afghanistan and the IMF. I don’t have much faith in voting changing things on it’s own, Voting and citizens action? Let’s see.

Buckminster Fuller 30 years ago and the search for vision today

2009-05-03T18:26:00.000-07:00

I was going to try to post my thoughts on Obama’s first 100 days but last night talking with my friend Joel I noticed that I needed more vision in my life, more of the utopian calling for another world , a better world, but one that lives dormant in the potential of this world. So vision takes precedence over the president.

2 days a go I pulled the book, Synergetics 2 by Buckminster Fuller, from the Ahern Library, a collection of books residing in our garage formerly belonging to my friend Rich Ahern (now deceased). I pulled it from the shelf to practice bibliomancy, the art of randomly opening a book and reading what is there as an answer to your question. This I was doing as a party game.

Today I came to the book more seriously and read the opening section. This section was heavily underlined by my friend Rich and at the end he had written “the most potent 8 pages of modern times May 1 1981” It addresses the material needs of humans and the potential to meet them. For my part I found it interesting enough to quote here at length. Remember it reading visionary work the key is not to pick apart minutia but to let it inspire

“Now in the 1970s we can state an indisputable proposition of abundance of which the world power structure do not yet have dawning awareness. We can state that as a consequence of the myriad of more-with-less, invisible, technological advances of the 20th century, and employing only well-proven technologies and already mined and even more copiously recirculation materials, it is now technically feasible to retool and redirect world industry in such a manner that within 10 years we can have all of humanity enjoying a sustainable higher standard of living—with vastly increased degrees of freedom—than has ever been enjoyed by anyone in all history.

During this 10-year period we can also phase out all further use of fossil fuels and atomic energy, since the retooled world industry and individual energy need will have become completely supplied by our combined harvests of electromagnetic, photosynthetic, chemical and biological products of daily energy income initially produced by Sun and gravity. Industry, retooled from weapons production to livingry production will rehouse the developed phases of world-humans by single-humans by single family, air-deliverable, energy-harvesting, only-rentable dwelling machines. When humans are convergent, they will dwell in domed-over, moon-crater cities that will be energy-harvesting and –exporting centers rather than energy sinkholes.

All the foregoing makes it possible to say that since we now know that there is a sustainable abundance of life support and accommodation for all, it follows that all politics and warring are obsolete and invalid. We no longer need to rationalize selfishness. No one need ever again “earn a living.” Further living for all humanity is all cosmically prepaid.

Why don’t we exercise our epochal option? Governments are financed through taxation and would have no way of putting meters between the people and their directly received individual cosmic incomes. So too private enterprise should no more meter the energy than it meters the air. But all of Earthians’ present power structures—political, religious, or capitalist—would find their interests disastrously threatened by total human success. They are founded upon the assumption of scarcity: they are organized for and sustained by the problems imposed by the assumption of fundamental inadequacies of life support.

Why does not the public itself demand realization of its option for a revolution by design science? Less than one percent of humanity now knows that the option exists; 99 percent of humanity cannot understand the mathematical language of science. The people who make up that 99 percent do not know that science has ever found out is that the Universe consists of the most reliable technology. They think of technology as something new; they regard it as threatening both in terms of modern weaponry and as job-eliminating competition for their life sustaining opportunity to “earn a living.” Ergo, humanity thinks it is against technology and thinks itself averse to exercising its option

The fact that 99 percent of humanity does not understand nature is the prime reason for humanity’s failure to exercise its option to attain universally sustainable physical success on this planet. The prime barrier to humanity’s discovery and comprehension of nature is the obscurity of the mathematical language of science. Fortunately, however, nature is not using the strictly imaginary, awkward, and unrealistic coordinate system adopted by and taught by present-day academic science.”

and later

“At present 99 percent of humanity is misinformed in believing in the Malthusian concept of the fundamental inadequacy of life-support, and so they misuse their minds to develop only personal and partisan advantages, intellectual cunning, and selfishness. Intellectual cunning has concentrated on how to divorce money from true life-support wealth: second, cunning has learned how to make money with money by making it scares. As of the 1970’s muscle, guns, and intellectual cunning are ruling the world affairs and keeping then competitive by continuing the false premise of universal inadequacy of life support. If mind comes into supreme power with in the decade, humanity will exercise its option of design revolution and will enter a new and lasting epoch of physical success for all. If not it will be curtains for all humanity within this century.”

If there was truth in this statement it looks only more accurate today. Even with a population that has doubled since the 1970’s and threats of global warning and shrinking of fossil resources I think we have the potential in the next few years to pull this plane called humanity out of a nose dive.

I think that an understanding that all humans can get their needs met with the resources and technology at had is reassuring.

I don’t think that the problems we face are primarily material or technological, but I do think that addressing the question of material conditions is interrelated with the solution to perhaps more significant social issues. It is not sufficient to make food enough for everyone, distributing it is also essential. Buckminester Fuller understands this, but does not fully address it. Rich also saw this shortcoming, a 3 by 5 note-card that he left in this section of the book says,

“The unstated assumption here is that the only cause of war is scarcity of materials of natural resources, so that abundance will change all that; but are not fear of strangers and power-hunger/(thirst for power and immortality) and a sense of manifest destiny equally powerful reasons for war? If so then political solutions must still be found, to problems of sharing the knowledge and wealth with all peoples & religions answers must be sought for the problem of immortality.”

I don’t know exactly what Rich means by immortality but I do think that socialisms best hope rests on the fostering of human closeness, a closeness that does not rest on physical proximity, fondness. Call it solidarity if you wish, when humans see in others the worth and goodness that is naturally within each of us, we have the capacity to overcome what Buckminister Fuller calls the misuse of “minds to develop only personal and partisan advantages”

Criminal Justice and American Crimes of Torture

2009-04-19T14:36:00.000-07:00

This week Obama took the bold step of releasing legal memos from the Bush administration that advocated torture, that is physical and psychological pain as techniques of interrogation. When he released this information he also was clear that his administration would not prosecute anyone acting on the advice of these memos. And he would defend anyone prosecuted for such crimes. He is arguing that we need to go forward rather than looking backwards.

Most astute civil rights defenders are arguing that to go forward we must first address the crimes of the past. If we don't do that it is argued that a de facto precedent is set supporting the legitimacy of of these torture techniques. In light of present legal principals I would have to agree. international law is clear that acting on orders from a superior does not absolve an individual of guilt. I'm no lawyer but by my understanding, if individuals who were involved in torture are not investigated and brought to trial in the context of the American system of justice, then it seems that the US is condoning their actions.

Now we get to the question of the American judicial system. There are 3 arguments in favor of incarceration, Punishment for punishment sake, Punishment as deterrent, and protection and prevention. Punishment for punishment sake is of course the mind set of the torturer, we don't want to recapitulate that mentality. The general evidence from criminal justice research is that deterrence does not happen. This is true for run of the mill criminals, maybe for those involved in crimes of the state deterrence works better. I'm open to that possibility , but I don't think we have evidence to support that. Finally prevention stands as the only potential legitimate rational for incarceration. Certainly we saw many of the political criminals of the Iran Contra scandal reemerge in the second Bush administration. Perhaps the world would have been safer if they'd been thrown in jail for life. Since a president might pardon anyone convicted of torture incarceration does not guaranty prevention from future crimes.

There are two other approaches to justice, rehabilitation, and restorative justice. Certainly a clear articulation from the present administration can do much to rehabilitate those who were acting on the Bush administration memos. Their crime was the torture techniques, but they were following orders, something we assume they will continue to do. Finally this brings us to restorative justice, in restorative justice the parties involved work together to identify ways that justice can be restored. Restorative justice at the political level might follow the model from South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Of those approaches and options regarding justice I suppose I favor truth and reconciliation. But if Obama wants to focus on the future and forget past acts, perhaps this principal can be applied to the vast number of people now behind bars. Nowhere does this make more sense than for the thousands incarcerated for non-violent drug crimes. For my part I'd like to see it applied to my friend who was recently sentenced to 22 years for acts of eco-sabotage done nearly 10 years ago.

What ever I think or Obama thinks, the responsibility of perusing and prosecuting the Bush approved torture rests with Eric Holder. Mr Holder is obliged to act regardless of what president Obama wants. Time will tell if he does.

Supporting the Obama Agenda in questioning recent Obama administration actions.

2009-04-14T20:03:00.000-07:00

Let’s assume that presidential candidate Obama was sincere when he spoke out against the violations of habious corpus at Guantanamo and rendition of individuals to secret prisons. Obama has also been outspoken in favor of transparency. Obama’s agenda represents the political refutation of the excesses of the Bush administration.

I’m glad that President Obama has issued orders to close the Guantanamo prison and the secret, so called black sites. Obama has taken action on transparency for instance issuing orders that FOI request be responded to with as little information withheld as possible.

Recently some positions taken by the Obama administration seem to go against habious corpus and transparency. First is the issue of the Bagram prison in Afganistan. Apparently the administration is now arguing that prisoners can be taken from other countries to Bagram, and be kept there indefinitely without due process. This is a continuation of the Bush Administrations position. A judge has ruled that the same rules that apply to Guantanamo apply to Bagram. Another point of concern is the Obama Department of Justice invoking state secrets and even creating a new term “sovereign immunity” in a case of illegal spying from the Bush Administration. Sovereign immunity virtually dismantles judicial checks on spying from the executive branch. The State Secrets Protection Act, legislation originally written by Clinton and Biden in response to Bush’s evoking of state secrets, has been reintroduced by Senators Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, and Pat Leahy.

No doubt the Obama agenda as articulated during his campaign is being challenged by the politics of the office of the presidency. I would like to have a greater insight into the pressures that push the administration away from the agenda. In the meantime supporting the State Secrets Protection Act is something we can do to support the original Obama agenda.

Words I never thought I'd hear

2009-04-04T19:16:00.000-07:00

"We can't reduce the threat of a nuclear weapon going off unless those that possess the most nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia, take serious steps to reduce our stockpiles," These are words I never thought I'd hear from a sitting American President. Sure I never thought I'd see a non-white president, but lets judge people by the content of their character not the color of their skin. Yes, I still oppose Obama's troop build up in Afghanistan. One has to take into account that this speech was really aimed at mobilizing world leaders against North Korea. And any politicians words are only as good as the actions they translate into. But even if he wasn't serious about cutting nuclear arms by one third in the next year and eventually eliminating all nuclear weapons, the notion that we would not have a double standard regarding nuclear weapons and military threat is unimaginable up to now in US foreign policy.

I think that we in the peace movement should have a celebration over this initiative.

universal coverage vs public health

2009-03-31T18:59:00.000-07:00

Universal medical coverage and comprehensive public health are not at odds. Each should further the goals of the other. But in thinking about policy that moves our society towards a more healthy citizenry looking at each of these goals as separate and even contrasting them may be helpful in getting direction. The tendency of the liberal left is to focus on universal coverage. I would concur that the value of society caring for all of its members is paramount. But the failure to provide comprehensive and unbiased public health education and interventions may have a greater impact on people’s health than universal access to primary, tertiary and pharmaceutical care. This post is meant as an exploration of this question, not an answer.

Public health includes many foci: Education for self care which includes information on lifestyle choices that promote decreased morbidity and increased longevity, and information on the prevention of the spread of infectious diseases. Interventions to promote a healthy environment, this includes promotion of sanitation, creation of healthy options and actions to address toxic hazards. Management of communicable infectious diseases, this can involve health screening, immunization and treatment.

Universal coverage generally includes expansion of medical coverage to everyone. While at the present virtually anyone can legally walk into an ER and be treated, this is very limited care, and even this many people avoid for fear of the bill or quality of care. Primary care is regular access to a clinician or clinic where a medical overview can be kept, sometimes called a medical home, or your regular doctor. Tertiary care includes advanced hospital care and medical procedures. Finally many don’t have access to needed pharmaceuticals. These are the major challenges of universal coverage.

Early public health problems included problems of sanitation and control of infectious disease. The role of sanitation probably has more to do with improved health statistics than any amount of medical care. World wide this is still a major problem. In the US it has generally been addressed with exceptions largely related to poverty, aging infrastructure and privatization of water systems. Successful elimination of small pox is perhaps the greatest single disease focused public health success stories. We are now only a few hundred cases away from the eradication of Polio from the planet in the same way. With greater acknowledgment of the problem and public health efforts to contain it, the HIV virus might have never spread as broadly as it has.

The major health problems facing the US today are largely chronic diseases. These diseases are rooted in problems of the dominant contemporary lifestyle. This lifestyle includes lack of physical activity, excessive and inadequate nutrition, high levels of psychological stress, and exposure to environmental poisons. Physical exercise is naturally reduced by convenience devices, not the least of which is the personal automobile, but there are ways of promoting exercise that don’t involve eliminating the car. Much could be said about the nutritious roots of chronic disease. Beyond admonishments to eat your vegetables, Americans suffer from a excess of unhealthy fats and sugar, and inadequate amounts of many essential nutrients. Most people don’t realize that the stress in their lives has costs beyond its psychological impact. Stress contributes to the metabolism that leads to obesity and the many chronic diseases that are related to it. Finally we don’t know nor can we adequately measure the effects of the thousands of new chemicals that are released into our environment every year.

Lets look at the central chronic disease complex that faces adult Americas today. At the pinnacle is heart disease, cardiovascular disease is the number one cause of death in America. But Obesity and Diabetes rates are on the rise. 1/3 of Americans meet the criteria of Obesity and it is estimated on current trends that 1/3 of children born today will have diabetes in their lifetime. In 2005 the New Engalnd journal of medicine published an article indicating that although the life span for humans had consistently increased for 200 years, we are now facing a likely decrease in life expectancy. The rational for this conclusion was the rise in obesity and diabetes. Diabetes contributes to the risk of heart disease, obesity contributes to the risk of diabetes and heart disease. Together risk markers for these three medical conditions make up what is called metabolic syndrome. The likely contributing factors for metabolic syndrome include: Consumption of a diet rich in simple sugars, or what is often called glycemic load. Trans fats, artificially hardened oils that are not found in nature. Excess and unhealthy dietary fat, and unbalanced ratios of healthy fats such as the omega 3 fatty acids. Not eating enough vegetables, or a lack of adequate and diverse phytonutriants. Insufficient cardiovascular exercise. Lack of strength building exercises. Smoking and consumption of other drugs that have significant cardiovascular effects. Exposure to environmental toxins including heavy metals and zenobiotic. Stress also plays a role in the development of Metabolic syndrome.

Clinical interventions regarding these risk factors might include some brief education, a hand out, and occasional referral to further educational or behavioral change programs. In reality even the briefest education is skipped over in most clinical visits. Public health interventions could address any of these contributing factors in a wide variety of ways. I will give several example of potential public health interventions that could improve Americas nutritional habits as they relate to metabolic syndrome. This is not intended as a proposal or an endorsement, but as evidence of the power of public health interventions. Any public health intervention merits careful consideration regarding its full effects, its costs, risks and adverse consequences as well as its potential benefits.. Nonetheless many of the examples I give have been used to reduce tobacco smoking. And some are being tried regarding food.

Public education regarding healthy nutrition, such as a national add campaign, limitations on the advertising of unhealthy foods fast food chains restricted from advertising on television, or require labeling of foods with information about their health risks or benefits, food labels do have quite a bit of information but for instance information about glycemic index and glycemic load could be helpful in identifying healthier carbohydrates. Taxing or preventing the sale of food substances or additives, new york city for instance has moved to stop the sale of trans fats within the city, mandating a variety of food options in a given area, one city in California has placed limits on the number of fast food places that can operate in a specific community. Promote research to further develop our understanding the role of improper nutrition in the development of metabolic syndrome. Cut subsides to corn which is a subsidy to high fructose corn syrup and to the cattle industry. Instead, subsidies the growth of garden vegetables. If the USDA is correct that a significant number of Americans diets are deficient of several essentials nutrients including vitamins A, C and B complex, calcium, magnesium, iron, and zinc to name a few, providing discounted or even free multi vitamins might have major heath benefits. Establish national broccoli day. The possible public health actions one might imagine are unlimited.

Public health interventions are of course limited by corporate political pressure. For instance, a recent major study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that red meat consumption associated with increased mortality. It is unlikely that that the cattle industry will let this information work its way into America’s public health policy

Nonetheless, my premise is that public health measures are better for providing preventive medical care, universal coverage provides improved quality of disease management and care. When thinking about individuals and their health and suffering I think that prevention may be more important than disease management.

Let me offer two scenarios: In the first case there is universal coverage, everyone gets insurance as good as those in congress have, but chronic disease rates continue to clime. The second scenario involves public health measures that result in substantial reduction in chronic disease rates but coverage continues at it’s present levels. Lets look at these scenarios in terms of mortality and morbidity, morbidity being a measure of ongoing physical disability and suffering. Scenario one might result in a shorter life expectancy for many, perhaps some who had not been insured but had become insured might live longer than they would have. But if the JAMA article is correct chronic disease would likely overwhelm those gains. In scenario two we might see people on the whole living longer although those with out insurance would not get care that might help them to live longer in certain circumstances. Disability and suffering is much the same. Chronic disease brings with it morbidity, health care can mitigate but not eliminate morbidity. Public health can not make all disease go away and those with out full access to medical care suffer more. One might think of it as a trade off suffering of those who don’t have insurance or suffering of those who will get a preventable chronic illness. I think it is possible that life expectancy would be longer and more suffering would be eliminated by instituting reasonable measures to reduce preventable chronic diseases than by providing universal access.

From a strictly utilitarian standpoint public health may win out. But principal of fairness and equality also need to be considered. At first glance it may be the working poor who suffer most if coverage is not extended to all, but the burden of chronic disease is not spread evenly, it too has a class bias against the poor. One might think that this is just due to coverage but we see the same pattern in countries with universal health coverage.

There are serious issues related to the government taking a heavy hand in directing lifestyle choices, particularly when the government so often represents corporate interests.

Finally cost is a complex issue beyond the realm of this post.

This post is speculative, I don’t have the facts or numbers to back up a case for greater public health over universal coverage, and I hope it isn’t a choice one or the other.

Be the stimulus you want to see in the world

2009-03-07T18:02:00.000-08:00

The economic state of the world is nothing if not unsettling these days. But unsettling is not always entirely bad. I don't negate the suffering of those out of work, the anxiety of those who might soon be, and the discomfort of those who's retirement has grown uncomfortable. For many of us our lives go on with minimal change except an awareness of the depth of the situation. But first what is the problem we face.

At it's extreme we could be watching the end of growth capitalism. Peak Oil and other resource limits playing out. The economist Herman Daly talk about steady state economics, what does he mean by this? Certainly steady state doesn't work with capitalism as we know it. Growth is a central element of capitalism. Capitalists get very unhappy when their capital does not grow. But some assume that natural resources like cheep and abundant fossil fuel are what has allowed for growth. What if these resources are no longer so plentiful?

Perhaps we are just in a slow down in capitalism but given time to correct it will start up again. This could be bad like the great depression or another year of recession and we're back on our feet. in this case the key is stimulus by any means.

In the first scenario, solutions might range form in the streets revolution, to relocalization of the economy, to new structures we haven't yet imagined. The second scenario suggests taking what ever actions that best maintain ones personal resources during the crises, but whatever best promotes economic activity at large. This raises a paradox is often observed by economic pundits. At the individual level saving makes sense but saving keeps the economy from moving forward.

So facing various paths before us and various interests and goals what actions can we take as individuals? My answer is be the stimulus you want to see in the world. Let me spell out an example. If you are like me a home owner and have any extra money spending it on weatherization, and if that is done as much as you can, invest in home energy systems, solar hot water systems, photovoltaic arrays, even home wind systems. This approach, like saving will offer financial returns, many weatherization efforts have a payback period of only a couple years or less. Green rehabilitationg will also be an economic stimulus, spurring economic activity in areas we would like to grow. the main clue I get from Herman Daily about what he means by steady state economics is the distinction between economic growth, and economic development. Growth is more development is better. Green energy improvements are clearly a positive development.

On the other hand if your unemployed what might you do? To be the stimulus you want means taking initiative, There are plenty who are unemployed from the building trades such people are well suited for transitioning to green housing work. My own experience from working in a house painting collective is that we made better wages than those who worked for a company. (I did that work during the early 80's the time that present unemployment rates are being compared to.) Another do it yourself employment opportunity that I think a small group of people with just a little capital could start would be a compact florescent canvas. Spend a day knocking on doors in wealthy neighborhoods canvasing for money to provide compact florescent light bulbs to low income people. Then do exactly that with the funds you raise. Helping the poor and the environment at the same time. I can't speak about other communities, but in a liberal town like Ann Arbor I think there is room for another canvas.

These quickly outlined ideas are just to suggest that there are proactive approaches that may be worthwhile is the economy resumes its course or if we start anew. Even under revolutionary situations creating real wealth is beneficial, work collectives and door to door canvases are potential proto revolutionary organizations of work and community organizing. on the other hand if they just move along the material conditions of the moment, and reduce the contribution to global warming that's meaningful as well. I not trying to be prescriptive. My point is that creativity can be directed from individual and grassroots action to stimulate a new direction.

Comments on Obamas talk to congress

2009-02-25T18:11:00.000-08:00

I have listened to Obama probably more than any other mainstream politician. Some of this comes from the nature of Obama's politics. Some of it comes from the youtube phenomena. I was able to listen to his address to congress about an hour after he gave it.

I found his speech only occasionally informative. mostly covering an agenda already familiar to me,and describing a state of the world only too familiar to most of us.

If we had an opportunity to act on his speech, say go out an vote for him, it might have been inspiring. (more on that later). But as the president describing what legislation and policy would do, hoping is now replaced with waiting. Will things work out as we hope?

Let me turn to specifics of his speech:
* The recovery package, will save or protect jobs we are told. And surely it will compared with doing nothing, or only cutting taxes for the rich. But the economy is still shrinking. We don't know how bad it will get or how long it will last.
* The credit crunch is perpetuating the down turn, and the banks seem unwilling to loosen lending. Obama indicated that further funds will be needed for the banks, funds beyond what has already been allocated. This is disappointing not only because the greater price tag, but also because his administration won't consider nationalizing the banks. If as some economists claim the big banks are already essentially bankrupt propping them up is just chasing bad money with good. taking over the banks would allow the government to at least keep the banks functional.
* Budget transparency was on Obama's agenda. This is good but claims about bringing down the federal debt are only guess work. Remember that any calculations about this were made by economists, remember how well they predicted the stock bubble of the 1990's and the housing bubble we just watched pop? A legitimate question is what if the economy doesn't get going again? Peek Oil might be a reason it wouldn't get started again. Oil prices are down because of the recession but the recession may have been effected by oil prices. If the economy gets going oil prices will shoot up even more and this will just put breaks on the economy.
* The president has set out energy goals that are optimistic. Renewable energy includes, bio-fuel, Hydro-electric, Geothermal wind, solar, wood and waste last year that amounted to about 10% of our energy needs. over 60 % of that comes from wood and hydroelectric, but these have been the slowest growing sectors in the past 10 years possibly even shrinking. they are unlikely to grow much in the next few years. Bio-fuel has grown by a factor of 6 in the past 10 years, wind energy production has increased by a factor of 15. For these growth sectors, wind and biofuel to grow at a rate that would double total renewable energy in three years they would each have to nearly triple their output each year.
*Obama recommitted to addressing Health care this year, but here he was perhaps most vague. Sort of the I'll form a committee approach. Unless the insurance racket , and big Pharm are controlled you can reshuffle the deck all you want but the cards will be the same. Mark Hyman MD will be testifying before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions tomorrow, he says he intends to tell congress that "we must change not only the WAY we do medicine, but also the medicine we DO." I think he is right but will anyone be listening? Part of the different medicine we need to do is focusing more on public health oriented interventions (I'll be posting on that in a separate post soon).
*Around education Obama set a goal that I hadn't heard before. "by 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world." I'm all in favor of a greater focus on education, but this we're # 1 crap is a mistake. There is no value in being better than others. The goals we should have are just being the best we can be. On education he called on every American to pursue at least one year of college, and he reiterated the importance of individuals turning off the TV. (more on this below).
*Regarding the middle east the message was wait and see, we're reviewing and will soon present our position on Iraq and Afghanistan & Pakistan. Well Afghanistan deserves a longer discussion, but I'm certainly not pleased with the additional troops sent there a few days ago.

OK its not perfect but there are some good goals, can they be obtained? A growing economy frees up resources to do things like address our environmental problems but a growing economy creates environmental problems too. some of how this balance will play out depends on our choices. both our collective choices, policy choices, and our individual choices. Similarly our health care costs are a reflection of our health choices. Obama made a personal appeal to citizens around education, an appeal for direct action, actions that individuals can take that can make a difference in the bigger picture, we should apply the principle of direct action to health care and energy issues. Here we get back to the notion of a movement to change America that is larger than Obama or his administration. Change happens through direct action, in this case it could be the action of weatherizing a house, or switching to compact florescent lights. it could be getting regular exercise and eating right as a step towards health care reform. So I think Obama's speech was important only as a preamble to a call for action.

Marie Mason

2009-02-08T19:11:00.000-08:00

Last Thursday my friend Marie Mason received a sentence of 22 years in prison for an act of sabotage against genetically modified organism (GMO) research 9 years ago. This is the longest sentence given to any eco-activist doing time in the US. I am sad about this extreme sentence and I am hopeful that it will be shortened in the pending appeal.

For more information about Marie and her case: http://supportmariemason.org/

a groundhogs day leter (the personal is political)

2009-02-02T20:00:00.000-08:00

02/02/2008

Dear Friends

February 2nd comes around again, so again I am writing my annual Groundhogs day comments. We a re already a month and a half from the solstice, and equally far from the solar calendars marking of spring.

This letter will include a bit of my life, and then my thoughts on the world.

My life:

A year ago I started a new job, working with a doctor with a holistic practice with a focus that I usually refer to as nutritional medicine. The basic approach of what we do is two fold. We identify and try to eliminate nutritional problems such as food allergies, microbial overgrowths, and poor dietary patterns and choices. We also recommend natural and generally nutrient based supplements that support our patients' internal biological processes. This approach is often called functional medicine. We are an integrative practice, meaning that we also use conventional medications when it makes sense. OK that's not all that we do but it gives you an accurate general picture. The job has been a thrill in terms of all I have learned and am still learning.

My family is strong. Beth and I work well with each other and our love continues to deepen. The struggle is finding time together alone. Teo is now in first grade and Zev is in third grade, they both attend the city's "open school". It's not exactly Summerhill, http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/ but the students do get to make choices about their studies, and generally our kids like it. As the boys grow their personalities also flourish. There was a time when I couldn't tell if differences between them were just related to differences in age, but more and more I appreciate their unique personalities and interests. That said, they are still such good friends, and they both amaze me some times with their kindness to each other and to others.

I continue to enjoy my close association with the cooperative house next door. We share cooking and meals, and meetings, and community. Coop living reminds me that utopia is a constant dinner party. I often live close to utopia.

My year was punctuated by what are becoming somewhat regular events. I had the good fortune to attend 3 co-counseling workshops including a trip to New York and a trip to Vermont (co-counseling http://www.cci-usa.org/ is a peer based emotional support process that I have been involved with for several years now). In November our family went to the demonstration against the School of the Americas http://www.soaw.org/type.php?type=8 at Fort Benning in Georgia. This is an annual action to try to close Americas military training camp for Latin American military personal who too often go on to commit atrocities against their people. Since my parents and sister live in Atlanta the trip is also a good opportunity to visit them.

I went to seminars in San Antonio, in Pittsburg. If I'm going to tally up all my travels, I was in Toledo on Election Day, helping Obama take Ohio. This year included more travel than typical for me.

I was modestly involved with the Obama Campaign, in addition to dragging a couple of friends to Toledo to knock on door, I registered a handful of people to vote, shuffled some papers for canvassing packets and did some door knocking in Ann Arbor to clarify where likely Obama voters lived.

This fall I've found my way a bit more on to the internet. In November I started to blog http://gaiaonpolitics.blogspot.com/ I'm trying to post something every week or so. The energy the blog takes probably exceeds the influence it has, but it's a good way to work on my writing. I always enjoy when people comment on my blog, so if your there leave your two cents. I've also started playing around with facebook. (if your on facebook but not connected to me, please look me up)

The World:

Things are not really improving yet but at least the potential for things to improve has improved.

I worked (to the extent that I did) to get Obama elected so that we would again have a US president who would listen to progressive perspective, and so that grassroots political action would again have some force.

In this first few weeks of the new administration some good thing have happened perhaps most important an order to close Guantanamo and the secrete CIA prisons. But the order hasn't been carried out yet. We will get plans from the generals regarding withdrawal from Iraq, and a man known to successfully negotiate peace is now the US Middle East Special envoy. Again encouraging but still peace is not yet here. It's hard to imagine that the US will change it's relationship to Israel, last year funding the Israeli military at 2.4 billion dollars. It's scheduled to increase to 3.1 billion in the next 10 years http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf . At least a more engaged policy will likely cut down of the violence. Some bad things have continues, for instance, drone planes attacking Pakistan, this being particularly troubling because it continues a policy of preemptive attacks. War is the greatest moral scourge that we face.

At what point does a recession become a depression? And how much can a stimulus packet do? I am glad that there are some funds for green energy, medical record technology may improve the quality of care, and certain infrastructure work is probably worthwhile. I'm not in favor of lots of road work. We need to be moving away from our car and long distance transport oriented culture. While financial approaches to help forestall the mortgage crisis will help people in need, I'd rather see legal approaches to preventing foreclosures. However one chooses to describe our economy it represents the greatest immediate challenge that we face.

I still hold to the understanding that in the big picture the two biggest problems we humans face are the running down of liquid fuel related to peak oil production http://www.postcarbon.org/ and global climate change. As we pass the point of maximum oil production most of the assumptions of modern society will need to be reworked. It is hard to imagine that we will be able to have an economy that continues to assume unlimited growth (and in turn ongoing profits from that growth) since cheep fuel has been the lynch pin for perpetual growth. Those expecting profits will try various destructive strategies. They will try to extract more from the poor, those least able to defend themselves, and to turn to all other energy sources including coal. Coal, of course, contributes to global warming (if clean coal technology is anything more than science fiction it is still costly, and no strategy for profit maximization.)

Solutions may be available, the question is implementation. For instance wind power is an increasingly hopeful alternative energy source but present global production of wind energy amounts to about 1.5 percent of the worlds total electricity production. It has increased by about 30% every year for the last 10 years. By one scenario 50% of the world electricity could be generated by renewable sources by 2017 http://www.wwindea.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=224&Itemid=40 . And then there is the need for an electric vehicle fleet…

Politically the capital of the US is not the only place were progressive governments are on the rise. Two days ago Bolivia approved a new constitution by popular vote re establishes water access as a right, and gives national control to natural resources (Bolivia holds over half of the worlds lithium, needed for lithium ion batteries). Amazingly, Obama has congratulated Bolivia for the passing of this constitution.

Yesterday I went to a meeting of grassroots community activists discussing the situation in Gaza. What was inspiring about the meeting was the sense that again there was space for activist movements to grow.

There are also structural forces that oppose change, but even they are changing. Chaos can be the prelude to an emerging, at first hardly perceivable system that is growing up along side the collapsing monolith. Change can some times happen quickly. Problems persist, but we can begin to vision a better world, yes another world is possible, increasingly more possible, and in that things look much more promising.

With love and growth,

Gaia

a campaign promess worth breaking

2009-01-25T10:13:00.000-08:00

The new administration deserves appreciation for some of its initial actions. It is great progress that Obama has decisively declared an end to torture, that he has committed to close Guantanamo and all of the CIA’s secret prisons. Obama’s commitment to opening up the Freedom of information process is also positive. His instruction to the pentagon to draw up plans for removing troops from Iraq is a good first step. I’m even willing to be hopeful about the appointment of George Mitchell as special envoy to the Middle East. All this seems in keeping with campaign promises.

Unfortunately there is one campaign promises Obama seems to be keeping that is a foreign policy boon dog. On the 23rd of January a drone plane flew into Pakistan and killed at least 15 people, possibly an al Qaeda leader, but also at least 3 children. Continuing these attacks was in keeping campaign statements he made. When debating McCain he said, “if the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.” In my opinion this position is wrong, and this recent strike was wrong for several reasons: 1) Although governments think they have the right to kill, killing is murder. 2) Collateral damage is another term for killing innocent people, in this case at least 3 children 3) Invading Pakistan like this is not good for building relations with the Pakistani government.4) Extrajudicial assassinations make the kangaroo courts of Guantanamo look like paragons of justice. Finally 5) what this act amounts to is a continuation of the Bush policy of preemptive military action.

The Bush doctrine of preemptive attack undermines the previously prevailing consensus regarding rules of international conflict. If preemptive attacks are justified then any government can claim that their initiation of violence was actually preemptive, an attempt to protect against attack. This was the argument for invading Iraq and has been used in discussions of possible attacks on Iran. Al Qaeda of course is the ultimate boogie man, and it will be argued that since we are in war with al Qaeda we have to strike them wherever they are. But when we strike inside of a country with out that countries approval it is an attack on that country.

This principle of preemptive action can be borrowed and widely spread. I recently read a debate about who first broke the cease fire that led to the recent invasion of Gaza by Israel, but who started it is no longer the question governments have to ask since preemptive actions can be justifiable. This kind of argument makes a difficult situation even worse. As the lone superpower in the world other nations look to the U.S. for the standards of international behavior. Until the Bush doctrine is overturned virtually any military action can be justified.

It is important for those of us working for a less violent world to push Obama to reject the Bush doctrine. This will mean that he will have to go back on that one campaign promise.

Many who want peace are delighted that Obama is in office and the general direction he is moving in. I share that general pleasure. Nonetheless this does not mean that our work is done, rather our work is cut out for us. One of the most refreshing traits of Baraq Obama is that he does listen to people. Now more than anytime that I can recall, our voices do have the potential to be heard. Yes things are better, but here is one area where we need to work for more, we need to demand the braking of a campaign promise.

babble of homophobes

2009-01-17T02:41:00.000-08:00

With Days until inauguration I'll share my thoughts on the pick of Rich Warren. Many on the left have been upset by the selection of Rick Warren to dive the invocation at Obama's Inauguration. I think he is a much better choice than many of Obamas actual appointments. All of his major foreign policy and economic advisers are from the right wing of the movement that got him elected.

Obama should at least have one progressive economist on his team, someone not trained by Robert Rubin. The logical choice would be Dean Baker, the only economist I know of who predicted a housing bubble at least a couple years before the burst.

In foreign policy there is no obvious choice because of the institutional set up that rewards macho. the people we would really want would all be rejected, but he could have found someone who had real and outspoken doubts about the war for a position other than administering the VA. Shinseki was described by the media as a repudiation of the Iraq war by Obama, but he isn't in a place to advise on policy. Our best hope for progress would be the development of a department of peace.

But back to the inauguration and Warren, this is an excellent position to offer to someone to is anti abortion, and homophobic. The culture wars have seen these wedge issues used to elect Republicans again and again. The symbolic hand reached out to across the cultural divide does a lot to undermine elections won on wedge issues, and costs nothing in policy. Policy of course is what we care about regarding reproductive choice and gay rights. The real question on this front is not who will give the invocation but who will Obama appoint when there are openings on the supreme court.

A tale of two demos

2009-01-13T12:57:00.000-08:00

Last week I attended two demonstrations about the situation in Gaza. The divergence between these two demonstrations reflects the fissures that run through the peace movement in Ann Arbor. This unhealed wound is bleeding what might otherwise be a vibrantly active local peace movement.

The first demonstration was on Saturday afternoon in front of the Federal building, It was attended by about a half a dozen activists who I have known for years. Friends I’ve known since the first gulf war, Some of these activist have held vigil on this street corner for several years now. The crowd maybe maxed at 75 people. It was timely, happening only days after the Israeli bombing started. The chants were loud and militant, many of the signs critiqued Zionism. One chant I could not join in with was “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free.” This chant is a call for the elimination of the state of Israel. I do not agree with the policies of Israel but still essentially acknowledge its right to exist.

The second demonstration was a candlelight vigil on Main st last Thursday. This was sponsored by Interfaith Counsel for Peace and Justice “ICPJ” the local interfaith peace group and Michigan Peaceworks the “big” peace organization in town. I did less of a head count here because my son Zev was with me, but there were about 100 to 150 people attending this vigil. The most common signs at this vigil were calling for a cease fire. Since it was available I held one of these signs, but with Gaza under siege a cease fire is not enough.

Long standing conflicts have existed between many of the activists who were at the first rally and the ICPJ and Michigan Peaceworks organizers. ICPJ and Michigan Peaceworks have been critiqued for failing to take certain positions about Israel and Palestine. There is even a group that calls itself “ICPJ Middle East Task fore in exile.” I don’t know if anyone other than me attended both the first rally and the vigil. Prior to the candle light vigil someone sent an email asking for volunteers to bring large signs so they could stand in front of signs that were deemed unpalatable to the public. I heard that some activists promoted a boycott of the vigil in response to this. Conflict abounds.

I know people on both sides who are deeply dedicated to working for a more just and peaceful world. I think both sides have important things to offer to that struggle. Unfortunately the conflict makes activists on both sides less effective. Those who want peace and a better life for the people in Gaza, when divided, will be conquered.

I would urge my comrades on all sides of this issue to hold out hope for developing a working consensus. Correct ideology alone has never changed anything. Change comes from action and nothing is more powerful than the action of people working together. Consensus does not need to mean agreement on positions or ideology, but consensus suggests that all voices are heard and that the best solution to a problem may be found by working through differences.

Further horor in Gaza

2008-12-28T13:47:00.000-08:00

Yet again the Israeli government has launched an attack on the people living in the Gaza strip. Perhaps the peoples of Israel and Palestine can find a way to come to peace with out external changes. But the role of America's unflinching aid and support for Israel in the face of terror reigned on the people of Palestine raises the central issue that we in America need to address, our military aid makes us complicate in this war. How can we hope to make negotiations work while we have chosen sides. And more important, how can we break the monolithic support for Israel by the American government. Does any one really have an answer to this?

MoveOn goals

2008-12-16T07:16:00.000-08:00

The group MoveOn.org recently asked it’s members what its top goal for 2009 should be. My answer: Reversing the Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes. They asked why this was important. My response: This got us in to Iraq and Obama seems willing to apply this to Pakistan. It goes against the foundational principals of modern international law. More importantly it is inherently destabilizing.

resistance and rising expectations

2008-12-13T02:16:00.000-08:00

I was recently asked if conditions in the economy were such that we might have real social resistance or an uprising. My initial answer was first I thought the American people had become too passive, second, I was sure that I couldn't imagine what an uprising would look like in the present era, but my third point was that unmet rising expectations help the chances of any revolution.

Two case studies in economic resistance to the down turn suggest that I may be wrong on my first two points.

The most well known of the two is the United Electrical Workers Local 1110 workers at Republic Windows and Doors occupied the plant after the company tried to close up shop with out providing the legally requisite 60 day notice & severance pay. This tied into the companies failure to get loans, the common economic malaise. In the end the workers got there demands met, and for good measure Obama even weighed in saying he thought the workers were right.

The second story comes from Miami in the midst of rising foreclosures where a group called Take Back the Land is doing just that. For about a year now they have been helping homeless folks squat foreclosed houses, around a half a dozen homes have been liberated this way.

Both these cases show that people faced with dire conditions are taking direct action with success. While I'm not anticipating Obama weighing in on Take Back The Land. This kind of direct action is what I would imagine an uprising to look like. to get to a real revolution things will have to be more wide spread, and will need to be taken even further. Eventually occupied homes will need to be defended either through legal agreements (according to the AP story that covered the Miami Squatting such may be the case in Cleveland and Atlanta)or through extra-legal means. Demanding severance pay is no substitute for a job. An example of where this could go is what happened in Argentina, where workers have squatted closed factories and started producing as a workers cooperative.

Homelessness looks like a problem that wont go away until you look at the stock of foreclosed housing. If the auto industry goes down there will be no shortage of factories ripe for squatting. Perhaps then a wider uprising, one that would look familiar to me might be possible. If things go that way I will be delighted to have been wrong on my first two points. Lets keep our expectations rising!

apointment and disapointments

2008-12-08T16:56:00.000-08:00

In a recent communication to left critics of Obama's cabinet choices, Barack Obama's deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand spelled out some of the problems our country faces. He then said, "The problems I mentioned above and the many I didn't, suggest that our president surround himself with the most qualified people to address these challenges. After all, he was elected to be the president of all the people - not just those on the left."

I have not been nearly as outspoken about Obama's choices as I think I should be. I think it is fortunate that others are raising concerns. Mr Hildebrand's comments merit a response.

First to say that we want a cabinet that is left is not just to say we won so lets take the spoils. To argue for a more left cabinet is to argue for a cabinet that does represent the views of all the people (of the united states). Consistently The American people express opinions (in polls and such) that are to the left of Americas politicians. If President Obama's goal is to surround himself with a diversity of intelligent opinions that represent the spectrum of American political opinion, that diversity would include someone like Medea Benjamin of code pink, or even Noam Chomsky. From the standpoint of pragmatism I understand why even the left would not rush into such appointments. But the diversity of opinion argument does not hold up if it amounts only to diversity to the right. Nor does it hold water if a couple of people from the left are appointed to token offices like the department of the interior.

Second there is the question of qualifications. This concept is too often represented as intelligence and experience. The third element of what makes one most qualified for a position is perspective. One can be brilliant and wrong. Experience can bring baggage. As we face so many crisis we do need leadership of perspective. we need good ideas, and frankly I think that the left has among the best ideas to address the problems we face. On the surface they may not seem pragmatic, but pragmatism that picks convenient solutions that are easy to push through may be penny wise and pound foolish.

Now let me get to the issue of criticism. This is the rough part. I'm suspect Mr Hildebrand and his colleagues in the Obama inner circle may observe that criticisms are coming and Mr Obama is not even in office yet. They may feel unnerved for a variety of legitimate reasons. and Mr Hildebrand's article is really a request that we give Obama's centrist cabinet a chance to work to fix the problems we face. I believe they will have that chance, but perspective does mater. A fix can be progress, or it can hold thing back. Critique when fairly given, to one who can listen as I believe that Barack Obama can, has the potential to strengthen. If Obama and his transition team hear that there are voices on the left that are not represented in his cabinet that are voices of his constituency perhaps he is more likely to act to include such voices.

I hope that critiques of appointments will continue, I hope the critiques will help strengthen the new administration. For those of us who raise critiques I would suggest that we strive to give fair criticism based on perspective not personality. We should understand that mistakes will be made but we can hope that our perspectives will help correct them.

A letter to my friend in peace studies:

2008-11-30T17:49:00.000-08:00

Dear friend, life gets busy and it has been too long since we have talked, perhaps this letter can start a dialogue.

I was with my family in Georgia 2 weekends ago. We were down there to visit my parents, my sister and her family, and to attend the demonstration to close the School of the Americas. I think you know my father is politically left, well informed and thoughtful.

Through several conversations with him I came to develop some thinking about how the peace movement might progress in the Obama era. You seemed like the ideal person to share these thoughts with.

The gist of the argument I would like to make is that the goals we have regarding US foreign military involvement might be considered separate from some specific programmatic goals of the peace movement. While we can hope for change on both fronts, we may have greater power to achieve programmatic goals.

To begin with certainly the election of Obama is an opening for the peace movement, but in no way should we assume that this means world peace is soon at hand. Even withdrawal from Iraq remains an open question. While we might want an end to military involvement in Afghanistan and incursions into Pakistani this is highly unlikely in the short term. We might want a radically different position on Palestine and Israel, however, it seems naive to expect much more than greater involvement in negotiations.

I have to acknowledge that from my perspective, under the Bush administration protest came to seem almost ridiculous in its futility. We are again entering a place where public expression may make a greater difference. Still, regarding actual fighting and war, I think that things will most likely play out more according to the dictates of Real Politics and within the framework of American foreign policy as it is today. Perhaps the best we can do is to keep Obama on track regarding the military departure from Iraq. We can hope that the risk of an attack against Iran is off the table for the moment. But a quick withdrawal from Afghanistan is highly improbable. To have much effect on issues of Israel and Palestine would require numbers and coherence greater than the peace movement's present scope.

Beyond Iraq, foreign policy is probably the area where Obama's positions are most disappointing to the left, and to the peace movement. All this is not to say that we shouldn't make noise about these important issues, but that we should anticipate that the peace movement will not have much power in the short run to influence foreign policy events.

I think another set of issues have a greater potential to be effected by organizing and action. Let me call them programmatic goals. Although they are less direct and urgent than stopping a war, they may be more important. Success with these could help to shift the framework of American foreign policy. And I believe the potential for success is grater.

The campaign to close the School of the Americas is an example of what I mean by a programmatic goal. This campaign is about 20 years old, often seemingly myopic in it's single issue focus. Now, with the recent change in the composition of congress the possibility of successis almost at hand.

There are several other campaigns that I believe now might make greater headway. Obama has promised to close guantanamo, and to stop US torture. Then there are international treaties that most of the world embraces but the US is not party to. The international treaty to ban land mines is an important example. Nuclear disarmament may again be a possibility. There is a growing international movement to close American bases in other countries. If successful this movement could begin to reverse American imperial reach. Kuciniche's proposal for a Department of Peace also needs a grassroots push. I believe that with all these programs and others like them there is now a greater potential for success.

While many grassroots efforts are underway all are limited in there scope, even the Close the SOA efforts seem to be mostly populated by a small sub culture of the peace movement. The busloads of students from small catholic colleges I've never heard of who show up at Fort Benning always amazes me. Some networking or linking of these programmatic campaigns might give strength to all of them.

So this brings me to why I am writing you. You have spoken of wanting to develop an international peace organization like greenpeace is for the environment, or Amnesty international is for human rights . I wonder what thoughts you might be having about that organization these days.

marriage & democracy

2008-11-15T18:13:00.000-08:00

I went to one of the many rallies held around the country today in protest of Californian's Proposition 8 which takes away the right to gay marriage. Considering the weather the turn out was great, my quick estimate put the crowd at about 150. The anti marriage amendment creates a lot of paradoxes.

First Obama's turn out probably contributed to the amendments success. Even at the rally speakers talked about how bitter sweet election night was.

Then there are the anti democratic sentiment that this vote stirs up, I have herd people complain about voting about issues of right, even the very concept of initiative voting is questioned.

This brings up political theory so I will digress. Ballot initiative are probably the most directly democratic procedure in the American political system. I prefer direct democracy to the representative form. There are things that can make direct democracy better, like political education. Even ahead of direct democracy is a system that includes principals of autonomy and consensus. Essentially decisions should be made by those who are effected by them, and then the participants should seek solutions that all parties can live with.

The main response to Prop 8 is to seek justice in the courts, and political struggles for liberation need to use the political tools available, but liberties won by democracy are preferred, it is better to win hearts and minds that to force a position. I understand the principle of equal protection but still...

Now then there is the very institution of marriage not one of my favorite institutions, it's origins, it must be noted, involved the selling of women. nonetheless I was at the rally chairing for marriage. When the chant went "fee fie foe fun, Marriage is for every one", I couldn't chant along. some don't have any use for marriage.

I would personally prefer civil unions for all legal matters, a contract easily entered in to and easily ended. Leave Marriage as a strictly religious commitment.

My beliefs and the meaning of the presidental election

2008-11-09T19:08:00.000-08:00

I hold the belief that at their core all humans are good, including an inherent tendency to care about others, a capacity to respond to situations with great intelligence, and something alive inside that is of great worth. Regrettably when I think about politics, too often I set aside this important understanding of human nature.

Often it is the Presidents of the United States towards whom I have the hardest time holding this view of core goodness. Make no mistake I find the policies of the Bush administration intolerable. But between policy and person there can be a great divide. Even if his goals and objective have short comings, underneath those are real human feelings and needs no different from yours or mine, and feelings and needs, I believe, are innocent, only in the misdirected attempt to meet his needs do problems emerge.

This brings me to the first thing I admire about our president elect Barack Obama. In his campaign for the presidency he was clear that he held nothing against John McCain, rather he focused criticism on the policies that Senator McCain supported. I can’t claim that the Obama campaign always took this high road, but Obama reached for it. From my view he did far better than most politicians in this regard.

I belief that there is something transformative in the power of really listening. Perhaps Obama’s greatest character strength is that he is a good listener. Reports from his role at the Harvard Law Review indicate that his administrative style is to listen to a variety of opinions which he would actually consider, and then he would make a decision. We also know that Obama worked as a community organizer because, as he told his peers, change comes from the bottom up. Community organizing and bottom up change is participatory democracy. In other words he has held the perspective that listening to the voices on the bottom matters.

We could only benefit from leaders who practice the politics of listening. There is talk of the organizational efforts from the campaign continuing. This makes sense from the perspective of a community organizer. This would be a big step towards the participatory politics of listening.

My favorite image from the entire campaign was the footage of Jesse Jackson in Grant field with tears streaming from his eyes. And hats of to him for all the steps he took to help us get to where we are now. Another belief that I hold is that cathartic is one of the most genuine and healing expressions of emotions.

Of course many of us cried when we learned that Barack Obama was elected. People will say tears of joy but I think that our tears ran deeper. We are crying because this election reflects a contradiction to the despair that many of us have felt around politics, race and the future for so long. Race, of course, is at the top of that pile of despair. In spite of the unconscious racism that most of us still have (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/Study?tid=-1 an interesting test you can take that makes the point), and the more overt racism that still too often runs our politics, we as a country in overwhelming numbers elected a President who is not white. This does not eliminate racism but it gives hope that we can overcome. Around the world people have celebrated this electoral victory, and have expressed great hope for what this may mean for our world and for peace. This outpouring may be overly optimistic but to take a moment and share in that global optimism and desire for peace is a deeply emotional experience. I have noticed this week that I continue to break into tears as I think about what has been accomplished, or when I hear some hopeful sign in the news. When I reflect my crying I see that it comes from the possibility that the despair that the world has faced for so long might be overcome. Now it is not so grim and I can cry for the despair, and as well for the joy.

To the President elect, Barack Obama

2008-11-05T18:03:00.000-08:00

Avaaz, The Global Peace & Justice Email group called for signitures and comments on a wall that will go up in DC to congratulate Barak Obama and encourage him to keep some committments to us. . My comments to our new president are here:

I joined your movement, worked to get you elected, traveled to ohio on election day to canvas & get out the vote. Like many when you were elected I cried tears of joy.
Now I would like to give you a warning: be careful of who you surround yourself with.
I hope you will continue to align with our movement for global peace, justice and environmental restoration. Please also work to reverse the doctrine of preemptive attack, we need great peace making in Afghanistan. I don't believe a war can be waged on a concept even if the concept is terror. If we can reverse american military belligerence, if we can create a fair and tolerant social and economic system, if we can preserve what is left of our beautiful & scarred earth, when compassion and love become political concepts, then I will cry , I will weep for joy, please exceed our greats hopes for your presidency.

Could it come down to a prayer?

2008-11-02T05:45:00.000-08:00

Why It seem that Bush stole the last two presidential elections? Probably because he did. But perhaps all those religious zealots praying for him did something too. What ever else you can do for the campaign on election day (I'll be in Toledo) pray for an Obama victory. Pray, visualize, imagine, meditate, send good vibes. Believe that we can win.

(....I told you I would make a difference)

An Open Ballot

2008-10-30T08:47:00.000-07:00

The private ballot is really about protecting against intimidation. I support the rights of those who choose to keep their voting private, but this is not a personal concern of mine. Being out in the open about who I will vote for and who I endorse is an attempt to promote political discourse. So right or wrong, here are my picks:

For President I endorse Barack Obama.
According to the statistically oriented poll-watching blog Five Thirty Eight gives Obama a greater than 95% chance of winning the election, and in Michigan Obama is up by over 15%. But in recent days Obama has slipped in the national polls (less so in the polls of the key states he needs to win.) The risk of McCain winning is unacceptable. So in Michigan I will still vote for Obama. I am confident enough about Obama in Michigan that I plan to go to Ohio to volunteer on election day.
Cynthia Mckinney has a less militaristic foreign policy, is generally more progressive, but she will not get elected nor will she even get 5% of the vote which would give the Green Party campaign matching funds. Most polls show her at 1%
Ralph Nader has polled as well as 6% but after jumping parties I lost interest in him. I don’t see an argument for building the Natural Law Party.

The Democrats in congress did not push legislation with teeth to end the war in Iraq. This was not the only place where they did not come through.

For Michigan Rep to the US Senate I endorse Harley G Mikkelson of the Green party. Carl Levin will win. Even in the very unlikely event that he didn’t the Dems will still control the senate. We may be reminded that Levin heads the Armed Services committee, but if Levin lost, Kennedy might assume the lead of this committee. That would probably count as progress.

For House of Representative for Michigan’s 15th district I am reminded of the slogan “don’t vote it only encourages them.” Like Levin, John Dingell will win, the district was drawn by Republicans to concentrate Democratic voters in one area. His performance has been so so on foreign policy, and he is a bit too close to the auto industry which is Michigan’s surrogate for the oil industry. Whether to vote for the Green party candidate Aimee Smith is a more difficult question. She is a grassroots activist, I know several activists who find her to be a difficult person to work with. I believe that her often antagonistic approach to activism has been counter productive in Ann Arbor’s progressive community. My tendency is to vote for policy regardless of personality. She holds a pro Palestinian position, and this is a position that has no voice in congress I understand those who share my position on Dingell but still can’t vote for Smith. In the end I will vote for her, I only wish this would encourage her to change her approach towards other activists (not her positions on issues).

I will vote for Matt Erard, the Green candidate for the Michigan state legislature 53rd district. This is a hard one to call as Rebekah Warren is a progressive Democrat. But since she won 2 years ago with 80% of the vote, a little competition from an old school socialist might be healthy. Erard calls for state ownership of all major industries. This is not exactly how I would approach building socialism. My point is to build the Green Party when possible. Erard’s campaign shows that Greens can run “fusion candidates.” Erard is also running as a Socialist Party candidate although they don’t have ballot access.

Vote tallies in the smaller statewide races are what determine if a third party stays on the ballot. So voting Green Party is important in terms of maintaining an independent political voice in the electoral system. I will also vote for Libertarians some times. I would vote for Natural Law Party candidates if there were any at this level. The US Taxpayers Party and their candidates often represent a fundamentalist christian political perspective that I can’t vote for.

For State Board of Education, I endorse Dwain Reynolds III, the Green party candidate
There is nothing exciting in either of the Democratic Party candidates, but I will pick one at random (League of Women Voter web page has some info on each of them)

For Board of Regents of the University of Michigan I endorse Ellis Boal the Green Party candidate and Denise Ilitch from the Democratic Party. Ilitch acknowledges the importance of renewable energy development.

For Board of Trustees of Michigan State University I endorse Therese Marie Storm, the Green Party candidate and I will vote for Joseph Rosenquist, the Libertarian Party candidate. I’m not excited about Rosenquist but I think there is a place for Libertarians in politics, and he comes across as less corporate oriented than some of his comrades.

For Board of Governors of Wayne State University I endorse Margaret Guttshall, the Green Party candidate and I will vote for Gary S. Pollard, Democrat. Poland seems to understand the importance of class issues regarding who gets a college education.

County office races are predominately unopposed. My position in such races is that if there is no choice there is no democracy. I think that this is in fact the case, but because I believe in having a vision of the future I would like I use the write-in option. I pick candidates from friends or people I know who exemplify the qualities I would like in that office holder. Since I have not asked anyone if I could promote them I will not. Two county races I will say something about are Sheriff and my county commissioner the 10th district.

The Sheriff race is a two candidate race, Democrat and Republican. I endorse Jerry Clayton the Democratic Party candidate. Some of my readers know that I ran for this office as a write-in candidate in 1996 and as a Green in 2000. 2000 was the year that Minzey the Democrat beat Ron Sheible the standing Sheriff and Republican. I have often said that my biggest regret is that I did not take more votes from Minzey. Minzey may well have run to dismantle the study on racial profiling and traffic tickets that Sheible was conducting. Clayton is the other end of the spectrum from Minzey, he understands the problem of racial profiling, and we can anticipate that he will work to stop it.

Finally at the county level, I invite anyone in the 10th district of Washtenaw County to write me in for county commissioner. No offence to Conan Smith, he is a progressive Democrat. But there is the issue of democracy requiring choices. Of the available unopposed offices the county commissioner is the only office I would be interested in and willing to hold (still no expectations of winning).

All right turn your ballot over

For Mayor of Ann Arbor I endorse John Hieftje. He is very popular in Ann Arbor,(the Republicans know this and aren’t wasting any resources running against him). Over all he is doing a good job and deserves to keep at it.

In ward 5 I will vote for Carsten Hohnke (what is it with these candidates with multiple adjacent consonants). I wish there were a Green Party candidate to vote for here. In my opinion, at this point in the development of the Green Party this is a more appropriate level for Greens to run than congress or the presidency.

Then there are the judges:

For Supreme Court I endorse Diane Marie Hathaway. Cliff Taylor is the incumbent and is a right wing extremist. Hathaway is progressive and has a good chance of winning.

For the 22nd District Circuit Court, I support Douglas Shapiro and Donald Shelton (when you go the poles don’t just remember initials as all three candidates initials are D.S.) a vote for Shapiro is a message to the incumbents that they don’t just get a free ride. Shelton is the better of the incumbents. At one point he presided over second gay parent adoptions until this practice was stopped by a higher judge, Shelton deserves credit for trying.

Among the unopposed judges I generally continue my practice of writing in alternatives. This includes when there are 2 candidates running for 2 spots. But I make an exception for Nancy Francis, not only is she a fine and fare judge but I still appreciate the time when she was a legal aid lawyer and she defended me and others in a non-violent anti war demonstration civil disobedience case. Politics has its favors.

For the 15th district cort I endorse Chris Easthope. although his opponent has gotten some progressive support, his opponent has worked as a prosecuting attorney, meaning he's too friendly with the police and he is likely to see cases through the eyes of a prosecute. Easthope will be more balanced. He has progressive credentials, He supported the building of the homeless shelter when running for city counsel in the ward where it was planned to be built, in other is not a NIMBY.

One can vote for up to three candidates for the Board of Trustees for Washtenaw Community College I endorse and recommend voting for two:

Graeme Rogerson
Most importantly he refers to partnership with the alternative energy industry. He is a recent graduate of WCC. Nonetheless he has a master’s degree from another institution
He also has a UAW endorsement

David E Rutledge
Is presently on the board, He appears to be community oriented, and he carries an AFL CIO endorsement.

Now don’t forget the proposals.

State Proposal 1 is for medical marijuana. This proposal receives my full endorsement and deserves unequivocal support. There are many medical conditions where marijuana can be beneficial. Some will point to the existence of marinol a drug derived from marijuana but if you’ve ever talked to those with experience with the drug it is clear that this drug is far harsher than marijuana.

State Proposal 2 expands stem cell research. Again, a clear Yes. If anything it is too limited in its scope, but it is a move in the right direction. Even though medical science is too often controlled by Big Pharm, this science is important and should be allowed to progress.

County Proposal A will get my vote, although the wording is funny, a renewal of an increase comes down to continuing to tax for park services and development at the present level.

City Proposal B gets my endorsement on 2 counts, first it provides greater protection for park land, but an additional benefit is that it promotes a more participatory democracy.

Finally Proposal H Washtenaw Community College Mileage Restoration is also a tax renewal. I endorse this proposal. Community Colleges are wonderful institutions; Washtenaw Community College is a fine example of this. For working class people in an economy as messed up as ours is WCC can be an essential life line.

Bob the contractor

2008-10-20T05:07:00.000-07:00

Ever wonder why there is no youtube coverage of a small business man named Bob or some such, taking McCain to task about his health care and tax policy. Certainly not for lack of such people who take issue with these policies. Perhaps McCain is handled in such a way that his only contact with the voters is from the podium, while Obama has the courage to talk to people.

Polls, pollwatching and OPD

2008-10-19T10:51:00.000-07:00

OK it its October 2008 and I am obsessed with the polls, I’ll check 4 or 5 web pages a day to see the latest polls and poll analysis. I know its not healthy, and polls are the opposite of politics and when presented as news they are really a way of avoiding real news. I know this but still I check the polls again and again. I’ve even come up with a psychological diagnosis, OPD obsessive poll-watching disorder. Obama is ahead by six to ten points nationally and according to some maps, he could reach into the mid 300’s with electoral college votes (270 are needed to win), but is it enough.

There are concerns about the Bradly effect, that people whose voting is hampered by racism will be less likely to admit it. The Bradly effect is actually a bit more complex. First the difference between polling and performance in the election seems to largely involve the “undecided” category. With Obama polling above 50% he should have some insulation against this. Secondly the Bradly effect seems to have been more prominent in the 80’s and 90’s than since 2000. There are various explanations for this but it is what the data seems to show. Nonetheless the N, the number of samples in the study is small. Finally we might take solos in the possibility of a reverse Bradly effect, in the Primaries in certain southern states Obama did better than what the polls showed. Again several possible explanations, but that’s what happened. Then there is the much talked about cell phone effect, individuals with cell phones and no land lines are more likely to fit the Obama supporting demographic, but this was supposed to play out in 04 but didn’t appear to

In 2004 I started watching polls more closely, there was a web site where I would check in daily, and I watched with optimism as the indicators looked like Kerry would win. On election day he held a small lead on Bush in Ohio, but many Clevlanders were disenfranchised by polling places with 4 hr lines, and then there was the Republican district where the number of Bush votes exceeded the number of registered voters. In 2000 Bush was appointed by the supreme court, Florida was marred by voter irregularities and again in 2004 Bush stole the election. Steeling an election is most possible when the election is close.

So between the Bradley effect and the possibility of Republican Party chicanery the question is how much of a lead in the polls will translate to a win on November 4th. There is of course a fine line between hope and confidence when it comes to getting out the vote. This uncertainty of polling numbers may help the Obama team keep on its game.

Finally there is the third party issue. Although I have been working on Obama’s Campaign, I am enthused about the Obama Movement (see my first post), and I hope Barack Obama is our next president, I see the limitations of Obama's politics. I am not a Democrat, the political party I affiliate with is the Green Party. If I were completely certain that Obama would win by a “landslide” I would consider voting for the Green presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney. There is a reasonable argument that a clear and decisive outcome will help Obama promote a progressive agenda. So at what point would in the polls would I vote McKinney? I don’t think that Obama is close to safe unless he is polling greater than 50% and more than 10 points above McCain in any given state. But I would need at least a 20 to 30% spread and at least 55% polling for Obama before I would feel comfortable voting for McKinney. At this point Hawaii is looking like safe territory for voting for McKinney.

Global Justice, Latin American Politics & Obama's Mistake

2008-10-12T09:37:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama’s snipes at Venezuela in the two presidential debates are misguided and disappointing. Venezuela is a democracy with a popularly elected president. Hugo Chaves has been reaffirmed by his people in elections and in a recall votes. He has had a hostile relationship with George W Bush, this seems justifiable considering the support of the Bush administration for the players in a coup attempt against Chaves. Whether the Bush administration was behind this attempted coup we don’t know, but the Bush administration has had considerable disdain for the Chaves government. While the Chaves government is accused of many things, its biggest fault is probably its role as a good example. Venezuela under Chaves has shared the wealth, with his people, with other struggling Latin American countries, even with poor US citizens in the form of heating oil assistance. But for all its virtues and faults Venezuela is part of a larger progressive movement in Latin America.

Most Latin American countries had been followed the Washington Consensus or neoliberalism for nearly 20 years. But this period had been one of limited growth. Then on January first1996, Mayan Indians started an insurrection in response to the North American Free Trade Agreement. And the world came to know the Zapatistas. The Zapatistas inspired and united many activists who opposed neoliberal doctrine.

The highlight of this movement was the “Battle of Seattle” in 1999 the World Trade Organization met in Seattle Washington and the streets filled with protesters of free trade policy. Of significance was the unity of environmentalists and union activists in opposing these policies. “Teamsters and sea turtles together at last” was a slogan that emerged from this historic event, the biggest demonstration of the 1990’s. Perhaps most important, these demonstrations may have helped to embolden the third world delegates to the WTO meeting to reject the terms of the industrialized nations. After Seattle the anti-globalization movement or the global justice movement began to gain momentum in the United States.
September 11th 2001 had a profound dampening effect on this movement, both inside and out. From the inside many activists shifted focus, putting out fires, trying to prevent and then opposing the wars, defending civil liberties after the passage of the patriot act.

In Latin America politics was not so constrained. During the last decade progressive governments have been elected in several Latin American countries. Their policies and place on the political spectrum vary, but reflect a leftward momentum. These countries from Venezuela to Brazil are developing a critical mass that allows for mutual support. For instance, when the Morales government of Bolivia was in crisis facing resistance and rebellion from some of the right wing governors from Bolivia’s conservative states, the Bush administration wanted to blame the problems on Morales, a socialist and the first indigenous president of Bolivia. But leaders from several Latin American nations joined together to support Morales.

So how does the Global Justice Movement and the leftward movement of Latin American governments relate to Obama? Is it possible that he is being propelled by some of the same forces that have moved Latin America to the left? Certainly Obama’s critiques of unrestricted free trade represent a divergence from neoliberalism. Directionally this is in line with the Latin American left. Obama is not (as McCain has claimed) the most liberal person in the US Senate and the Senate is not known for its ability to attract liberal politicians. Nonetheless, and in spit of his back sliding on certain issues, he still remains the most progressive presidential candidate to be nominated by a major party in at least a generation.

Is it possible that this is more than coincidental with the rise in progressive Latin American politics? The Germans say zeitgeist, it means the spirit of the times or the prevailing attitude of a period. Perhaps Obama and Venezuela are linked in this way. Venezuela could be an ally to an Obama presidency. This is not the shape of American Foreign Policy at the moment, but Barak Obama should reflect on a saying of the global justice movement, “another world is possible” this is no more than the audacity of hope.

Is this the best American discourse can present?

2008-10-09T09:39:00.000-07:00

Is this the best American discourse can present? The vice presidential debate, and the second presidential debate were most notable for their lack of any true debate. Instead these events are more like simultaneous live commercials.

The VP debate was predictable to anyone who knew that Palin has a track record as a successful debater. She didn't fall on her face but she really didn't have the experience to do much more than recite sound bites, mostly she got them in where she was supposed to although some times she missed things. in debating Biden's record on the war it was clear to me that she was referring to the period of the surge, while Biden was talking about the start of the war. this allowed Biden to assert things with Palin only able to babel on about how Biden was not telling the truth. Holding people to the truth is difficult if you are ahistorical. The good news from the debate is that the Republicans lead cultural warrior has conceded the rights of civil unions for gay couples. We shouldn't stop here but at least it's an example of the Republicans moving to the left. More on that in a later post.

The second presidential debate was called a town meeting format. That they call this spectacle a "town meeting" is an affront to democracy and the New England tradition of town meetings. The assembly is an important form of direct democracy. Among New Englanders the town meetings are an example of the assembly: citizens meeting to discuss issues and make decisions. Instead we get preselected questions primarily from individuals who are politically in the middle of the road. Theatrically individuals are called on and recite their script. The highlight of the show was when Tom Brokaw asked the candidates to move because they were blocking the teleprompter, and the cameras let us see this device that we hear about but seldom actually see.

The second debate was basically a rerun of the first debate. McCain started with a moment of populism, saying he would direct the treasury secretary to renegotiate loans to present market values, this of course is something the bail out package allows for. Beyond that initial remark everything else from him sounded like something I had already heard. Obama mostly repeated things said in the last debate, sometimes repeating himself in quoting him self. On Pakistan: "what I said was if Pakistan is "unable or unwilling" to do this job, and U.S. forces have Osama bin Laden in their sights, then U.S. forces will "kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda." At least when quoting himself for the second time he could have expounded on this just a bit, indicating his intent to work with Pakistan to assure that they would be willing and able to work to capture Bin Ladin. Obama once again jabbed at Venezuela. This is a shame because Venezuela's progressive politics maybe beneficial to American political tendencies that Obama is aligned with. This also deserves elaboration in a future post. I felt that Obama won the debate with his last two comments. the second to last comment was a response to a question about defending Israel against an Iranian attack. Of course to be considered as a contender for the US senate say nothing about the presidency, Obama has had to show his support for Israel. But I give him credit for indicating that he would like to try to keep things from getting to that point. In the present climate of American middle eastern politics even that modest statement is progressive. Obama's closing remarks held some rhetorical strength. McCain on the other hand seemed to wander with empty political platitudes during his final statement. I'm starting to wonder if one of the advantages that Obama has over McCain in the debates is that McCain gets worn out after an hour, while Obama get wormed up around then.

In any case the debate was largely a collection of sound bites. I would prefer a more focused debate, an hour an a half on exit strategies for Iraq, on an hour and a half on next steps for the economy. Palin showed us that anyone can memorize lines and make it through a pseudo debate. Our politics need to move to the left, but we also need depth.

Responce to "Pro-Life" Voters

2008-09-30T17:37:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine who was making calls for the Obama campaign recently reached someone who was against abortion and so wasn't sure if he could vote for Obama. My friend wasn't sure how to respond. She liked my suggestion for a response so I thought I'd put it in writing.

First acknowledge that no one is in favor of abortions in the sense that we all wish the unwanted pregnancies that need abortions never would have happened in the first place. Abortions are not pleasant for the woman who have to have them.

Second point out that in spite of the majority of supreme court justices having been appointed by presidents who say they are opposed to abortion Roe vs. Wade still stands. When Bush was elected we were told that Roe vs. Wade would be overturned, but 8 years later it still hasn't.

Then explain why this might be. The Republican party depends on the "pro life" vote to get its politician elected. It's not that they want to end abortion (some may more than others), but they want you to think that they want to end abortion so that people who are against abortion will vote for then. If the right to abortion was ever over turned this could undermine the conservative politicians case that they can help stop abortions. Once over turned stopping abortions is no longer a major issue.

It's worth noting that while Sara Palin is strongly anti abortion and might actually do something to end abortion as vice president, she is not in the position to do so, she won't be appointing judges. On the other hand John McCain has "shifted" his position on this issue.

Now at this point the question is whether the person is just against abortions from a pro-life position or as is often the case they are anti-sex-outside-of-procreation-in-heterosexual-marriage. In the later case abortion is evidence of sex not intended for procreation. (excuse me if I overstate the position, but I think you know what I mean). If their opposition to abortion is part of a larger agenda perhaps you should stop with talking about John McCain flip flopping on the issue. Apparently in 1999, John McCain said.

"I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." (source: http://www.bi30.org/wordpress/flipflopper.htm)

If your talking to someone who is truly only opposed to abortion then additional points can be made. Abortions happen whether they are legal or not. in fact according to The Incidence of Abortion Worldwide by Stanley K. Henshaw, Susheela Singh and Taylor Haas, published in International Family Planning Perspectives, 1999, 25(Supplement):S30–S38, "Abortion rates are no lower overall in areas where abortion is generally restricted by law.... than in areas where abortion is legally permitted". Comprehensive sex ed, empowering young women, and reducing poverty does more to reduce the number of abortions than outlawing them. For instance The Incidence of Abortion Worldwide also points out,

"Among countries where abortion is legal without restriction as to reason, the highest abortion rate, 83 per 1,000, was reported for Vietnam and the lowest, seven per 1,000, for Belgium and the Netherlands. Abortion rates are no lower overall in areas where abortion is generally restricted by law.... than in areas where abortion is legally permitted".

You might end with wondering if we could have better luck reducing abortion rates more if pro-life and pro-choice people worked together.

Progressive Economists & Republican Reps.

2008-09-29T18:32:00.000-07:00

Progressive economists like Dean Baker and James Galbraith are increasingly staunchly opposing the 7 hundred billion dollar bail out. But it seem to be the house Republicans who are most strongly resisting passing the bail out. Some times politicians may do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Meanwhile peoples rage against the banks seems to be turning in to action against the bail out. There are better ways to spend that amount of money that's for sure.

An open leter to Barack Obama on the foriegn policy debate

2008-09-28T11:30:00.000-07:00

Dear and Honorable Senator Barack Obama,

I am working on your campaign, I am hopeful that you will be elected. But having seen your foreign policy debate with John McCain I have some deep concerns. I realize that your are stuck like so many politicians playing to that small group of undecided voters, and I realize the media enforces rules of conservative politics, if you step out of an increasingly narrow bounds they can destroy you. Nonetheless, it is in standing for something that you become a strong candidate.

Allow me to share my concerns.

Regarding Afghanistan: we can look back on the history of our invasion of Afghanistan, was it necessary? Perhaps you cannot say this as the Democratic presidential contender, but I would argue that we did not need to invade. The Taliban indicated a willingness to negotiate with us regarding turning over Osama Bin Laden but they were given ultimatums quickly followed by an attack. Perhaps al Quieda could have been dismantled with diplomacy and policing actions. We will, of course, never know where negotiations might have led, but just as the errant decisions that led to the Iraq war are important to keep in focus the same is true for Afghanistan.

More significant is the question of how we leave the conflict. I find it hard to believe that more foreign troops military will win over the Afghani people. This is what I hear you suggest, but as we see in foreigners can increase resistance. If a successful strategy is to be found it will need to be sensitive to the culture and the needs of the people of Afghanistan. It will need to be based on resources to support the country, rather than weapons that ultimately destroy it.

Regarding Pakistan, I was glad you acknowledged the problems of supporting a dictator for 10 years. But I am concerned about strategic strikes into even on limited and carefully thought out bases. I am reminded of the bombing of the El-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan in 1998 under orders of Bill Clinton. Intelligence told him it was a weapons plant.

I was disappointed when you called Venezuela a rogue nation. Venezuela is a democratic nation and Chaves is a democratically elected and popularly supported president. Chaves and the bush administration have had an antagonistic relationship, but has not engaged in rogue actions. There are still questions of whether the government was involved in any way in supporting or encouraging the coup attempt against Chaves. That would make us the rogue nation.

Perhaps my greatest concern was when you said "No soldier ever dies in vain because they are carrying out the mission of the commander and chief." While this may have had some temporary rhetorical power, I hope you don't really mean this. American foreign policy has not always been "honorable" certainly our invasion of Iraq was immoral and predicated on false purposes. Those soldiers who thought they were fighting to find and eliminate weapons of mass destruction who died in the pursuit of that goal died in vain. Further, commander’s orders are not sufficient justification for soldier’s actions. The "just following orders" justification allows horrendous war crimes. America is not above this potential fate.

Those are my concerns.

I am glad that you are opposed to our war in Iraq. This is what drew many of us to your campaign. A quick end to the war has always been ethical; it is also wise and prudent. I wish you would have reminded the American people that the Iraqi people want our troops out, the Iraqi government wants a time table for the withdrawal of our troops, and the majority of American people favor an end to this war. To proceed with out promises of withdrawal threatens to jeopardize the fragile coalitions that have allowed a decrease in violence. This coalition (possibly negotiated in part by Iran is probably more important than the surge in reducing the level of violence in Iraq.

This brings me to the one point in the debate that was most encouraging for me regarding your foreign policy position. I am glad that you are willing to talk with adversaries. I want to commend you for taking this position. I understand that this is very much a part of who you are. It is because of this that I am still willing to support you even if we disagree on many of the important, life and death decisions of American foreign policy. Nonetheless, while I support you, I want to be clear that my support is not unconditional and that I urge you to revise your position on the issues I have presented here.

Sincerely,
Gaia Kile

Bank Bail Outs and Energy Futures

2008-09-23T08:26:00.000-07:00

What would you do with $700,000,000,000.00? The American financial system is broken, and this is the repair bill. There is no good solution, although we might like to let the captains of capitalism fail, the problem is that they would take us with them. We are told that with out some support to the banking system we could face a banking freeze, this could mean that the bank may not be able to issue your pay check. no pay checks and the economy could really go down hill. On the other hand 700 billion dollars may not be enough to fix the problem, or it could even make things worse.

As I write this congress is trying to hammer out the details of a bail out, fortunately many in congress are calling for accountability, transparency & re-regulation. Three important ideas include: 1) a call for equity exchange, that is if the government gives the banks 700 billion then the banks give the government some shares in banks. 2) that banks who choose to take advantage of the bail out should have limits on the salaries of their executives. 3) for the individual mortgages the government picks up the government should work to help those individuals keep their homes. A lot of people are referring to the system and bail out as a case of privatizing gains and socializing losses. Although demanding equity, and asserting authority over failing institutions may be lemon socialism it is at least a step better than welfare capitalism.

But what would you do with $700,000,000,000.00? About 4 years ago the Apollo Alliance started talking about a major investment in energy efficiency, renewable energy production and related jobs in this field. They presently suggest $500 billion investment over 10 years. Increasingly others are adopting energy programs that mirror this proposal, Al Gore and the We campaign to fight global warming have called for 100% of American energy to come from non-carbon sources with in 10 years. Barack Obama has presented an energy program that focuses on eliminating our need for foreign oil. Even John McCain has windmills on his energy policy page. In other words a consensus is developing around the importance of responding to global warming and oil prices with a plan for an ecological and sustainable energy future.

I don't know about you but I would much rather see hundreds of billions of dollars go to a green energy program than to help out banks that have made poor decisions. Green re-industrialization promises greater social and financial returns than buying bad loans.

Although the US government is already over strapped with debt related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is possible that the government can bail out the banks and still have funds for an Apollo like energy project. Nonetheless, after this bill there may not be the political will. So if the "fixing of the economy"can't be redirected towards addressing the energy & environment problems directly, I would add one more key element to a 700 billion bail out package, Participating banks should be mandated to preferentially loan to energy efficiency and renewable energy projects.

it's worth mentioning http://www.freshaircleanpolitics.net/ is a page that is working to slow or stop the bail out process, go there and you can send a message to your legislators.

Remember the Keating Five

2008-09-18T08:27:00.001-07:00

As the US government steps in to sure up American financial capitalism with corporate socialism its worth reflecting back on the last major banking meltdown, the savings and loan crises of the 1980's. Saving and loans were institutions oriented towards serving the community, a safe place for individuals to save, and a friendly place average folks could go for a mortgage. If you've ever seen the movie "it's a wonderful life" think of the bank that Jimmy Stewart ran. these institutions were insured by the US government. then in the 1980's deregulation of the S&L industry turned them into vehicles for quick money and bad loans. It was only a short bit of time until the loans started to bring down the institutions to the tune of 125 billion US government payments.

One chapter of that mess was the political scandal of the Keating five, five US senators who supported Charles Keating, who headed Lincoln Savings and Loan. He had made $300,000 as political contributions to them and they may have interfered with investigations of his bank. The whole story is complex but we are hearing a lot these days from one of these senators: John McCain

The Obama Movement

2008-09-18T08:27:00.000-07:00

Within the confines of probable American politics, progressive hope is focused on electing Barack Obama. Even this hope is muted by Obama’s support for military involvement in Afghanistan, his capitulation on FICA wire taps, and his willingness to compromise on off shore drilling. In discussing the progressive potential of Obama, it is worth distinguishing between presidential contender Barack Obama, the Obama election campaign, and the movement that is focused on Obama, or what might be called the Obama movement (after elections it will need to be renamed).

The presidential contender is a person and a politician, he is important because he may soon hold the office of the president of the United States. For progressives his political roots hold promise, and his agenda moves American politics in the right direction.

The campaign is the direct effort to elect this politician to the office of president. The campaign is not just the activities of the Democratic Party but also include organizational efforts by other groups such as Move On.

Movement refers to those working for the progressive goals that Barack Obama has articulated or become a focus for.

The Movement is a coalition of American progressives. Key goals of the movement include:

1) Removal of American troops from Iraq in a timely manner.
2) A tax policy aimed at fostering greater economic fairness and equality
3) An approach to energy that is oriented towards sustainability and American self sufficiency
4) Challenges to neo-liberal free trade economics and out sourcing
5) Expanded Health coverage for Americans with the goal of universal coverage.
6) And a list of civil rights objectives beneficial to women, people of color, LGBT, and the poor.

Many of us on the Left may be dissatisfied with the limits of some of these goals, and even more so with the political presentation of these goals. To be clear I disagree with the proposition that the reason for withdrawing from Iraq is to be better able to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. As I mentioned at the onset, this discussion is about probable politics in America at the moment. But probable and possible can be mutually supportive. Even minor gains today can create an atmosphere for larger change in the future. As a movement there is the potential that we can evolve out goals towards even more progressive ends.

As supporters of Obama we should be clear that after elected Barack Obama remains a politician and will have to work with other politicians in congress, at that point the Obama movement becomes very important. It is only if we keep working and pushing that we will achieve the movement’s objectives. In fact even if Obama is not elected the movement is important.

Obama movement activists will logically be enthusiastic about the candidate and participate in the campaign. As we contribute, fundraise, make phone calls, nock on doors, organize events, and register voters, it is important to be clear about why we are engaged in the work. So for instance if you make a donation to the Obama campaign, include a note listing the movement issues that are important to you. If working with other Obama activists work to build political connections, think about how these connections might extend beyond November. Perhaps even plan follow up efforts for after the elections. Of course many of us will be single mindedly focused up to the elections, but some of us ought to start to embrace a longer view.

There are elements of the Obama campaign that are grass roots. And I’m not alone in thinking about keeping the social momentum for change going beyond the elections. As you get involved in the Obama campaign, participate in the Obama movement as well.