The most cursory glance will show the fate of truth.  Just recently, we have a slew of rutting Senators who denied their improprieties and only barely admitted any malfeasance in the face of hard evidence.  We have listened to detractors of the stimulus bill decry its unsound policy from one mouth while praising its efficacy from the other.  We have listened to claims that Death Panels, Medicare cuts and prohibitive costs provided incontrovertible proof that health care reform is a terrible mistake.  We hear assertions that Obama is not American born, and therefore ineligible to serve as president.  We hear Repugnicans allege their willingness to bipartisanship, while holding up over 290 bills through abuse of the filibuster.  We see Sarah Palin presented as a capable politician.

Justice is equally infirm.  We have a Supreme Court which, in a demonstration of judicial whiz-dumb, struck down a long standing policy preventing the open sale of elections.  We have a Department of Justice (sic), which has ruled that those attorneys who opined the legality of torture were guilty of a lapse in judgment, deserving only censure rather than sentence (Nurem-who?).  We have a presidential administration obstructing the prosecution of bona fide war criminals, while one of those criminals makes frequent appearances on national television to publicly revel in his past decisions to commit crimes against humanity.  Meanwhile, the heads of state in Virginia are gloating in their recent victory, which restores discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Thankfully, we can take heart in the fact that the American Way has not been desecrated beyond recognition.  The American Way, to some, means the freedom and opportunity to find a job, earn a decent wage and pursue Clark Kent’s American Dream of a spouse, 2.5 children, and a home in the suburbs with a white picket fence and a car in the driveway.  To others it may mean the freedom and opportunity to open a bank and lend Clark — convinced by advertising that it’s easy and sound to live beyond one’s means — the money he will surely need to buy his dream life.  The American Way also means the freedom and opportunity to establish a monopoly and buy enough politicians to ensure profiteering beyond the dreams of avarice.  This may, perhaps, mean that the Daily Planet can no longer afford to pay Clark, who will no longer be able to afford his severely depreciated home, his car, or health insurance.  Well, that’s not too much of a problem for him — he’s Superman, after all.  Lois, however, is mortal, and a simple twist of fate will render the family bankrupt.  But this is OK!  The bankers and insurers are still living their American Dream.  While this may seem inequitable to some, we refer them to the now immortal words of Kentucky senator Jim Bunning: “Tough shit.”

And thus we found ourselves in battle not only with the megacorporations, but the politicians they own.  While most liberals will thank the Republicans (to some extent) for throwing tantrums like indignant children, while we may be glad of the proof at yesterday’s Blair House Summit that Republicans want only to persist in lies, talking points and smoke screens to maintain the status quo, they cannot be singled out as the only schemers in the game to sell middle America to the corporations.  With Repugnicans in the minority, they cannot be held entirely responsible for the fact that there has been no curtailing of risky banking practices of those banks we bailed out last year.  They cannot be held solely responsible for the fact that Blackwater, with a proven record of criminal practices, is still under consideration to gain another billion dollar contract for mercenary services.

And my advice to anyone with some money to invest is to buy stock in WellPoint, Humana, or any other health insurer you choose, because they have scored a political coup.  Behind all the political staging we can see that lobbyists have outnumbered congressmen eight to one.  We can count the number of meetings they’ve had at the White House.  We can count the number of so-called “blue dog” Democrats, sabotaging their own party.  After all the drama, we’ve finally been given to believe that the Health Care Reform bill will be passed and enacted via simple majority, which the Democrats still hold.  But how is is that now, when the Public Option could easily be added to the reconciliation process, the Democrats who touted the Public Option, who made a great show of sacrificing it at the altars of Snowe and Lieberman (oh, how they did gloat!), how can we now believe that they ever really had the least intention of considering it?  Is it merely coincidence that Obama dropped his support of that same Public Option for which he campaigned in ‘08 after meeting with insurance lobbyists?  Are we supposed to believe that although the majority of American voters are in favor of the Public Option, the politicians purported to represent them fear some sort of retribution for giving voters what they want?

You bet they do.  They fear the retribution of the insurance industry, which provides a kings ransom in campaign contributions, perks, and other benefits, the likes of which no average voter could ever hope to match.  I have seen Glenn Greenwald, constitutional attorney and blogger, doing a few interviews lately — interviews that will never appear on any Repugnican owned faux news channel.  In these interviews, as well as his book Great American Hypocrites, he exposes what most of us do not see: the back room meetings and schemes used by the majority of both parties to ensure that the flow of wealth maintains its status quo.  The Health Care Reform debate has never really been about truth, justice or morality.  It has never been about the American people, differing ideologies, nor has it even been about health care.  This battle seems to have been fought to remove any threat of competition and ensure the obscene profits of the health insurance companies.  By doing their best to thwart any reform, Repugnicans show their conservative disciples how they fought against evil governmental takeovers and socialism; by making a great show of trying to create a Public Option, Democrats can tell their liberal base that they did their best for them.

Except that they didn’t.  Nor will they, so long as politicians continue to be bought and sold in free capitalist markets.  This is, after all, the American Way.

The Republicans under Bush had no such problem, but there were no Red-Dog Repugnicans with the chutzpah to cross their own party, and ignore Bush/Cheney cries of War and Terror.  Then everyone decided they wanted a change, and Obama sent the right message: “Yes we can!”  What no one heard, however, was the unspoken parenthetical: “…but we’re not going to.”  Obama made promises of a shining new beginning.  Then, little by little, he began to chip away at them.  Certain transparency promises to counter Bush-era abuses had to be broken in the interests of security.  Enforcing Banking Reform had to wait to be certain that Wall Street could survive the change (they’re surviving quite well, thank you).  Ramming Health Care Reform through the house and senate had to be abandoned in the interest of bipartisanship - despite repeated and obvious evidence that no Repugnican cooperation was forthcoming.

A little while ago, there was much press given to the recently vocal and ubiquitous Cheney for accusing Obama of dithering and failure to take prompt action against terrorism.  Well, Obama did dither, but one must correctly identify the terrorists:  The corporate heads of the too-big-to-fail banks, private insurance giants, big pharmaceuticals and others with billion-dollar budgets for lobbying (read: legalized bribery), and the Republican minority campaigning for war and fear-mongering and against humanitarian issues like the right to health care, the right to equal treatment under the law for GLBT Americans.

Americans had ringside seats to the sickening displays of childishness on the House and Senate floor.  We had ringside seats to the media circuses of the tea-baggers.  We had ringside seats for announcement after announcement amounting to one message: Yet another excuse why Goal XYZ would not be met.  And last night the people of Massachusetts sent a loud and clear message to the Washington Democrats that the maintenance of the status quo, despite the rallying cries for change 14 months ago, is less than satisfactory.

I’ve listened to all the post-mortem reports casting blame on Coakley or the Democratic party leaders (isn’t that an oxymoron?) for the loss of the Democratic super-majority, but the most hypocritical among those is that of the Obama Administration.  The Democrat-in-chief should have taken a firm hand to the helm and failed to do so.  Well, Mr. Obama, shortly after your inauguration you told us that Roosevelt’s sign was still on  your desk to remind you that “The Buck Stops Here.”  Now we have given you a clear reminder that it’s still there a year later.

Does this spell doom and gloom for the slightly-right-of-center “Democratic” party when the next senate elections are decided?  If the Democrats take Brown’s victory as an object lesson in what they’ve failed to do and turn resolutely to accomplishing what the people asked of them before the end of the year, they just might manage to maintain some semblance of control.  If not, there will be future opportunity to repeat today’s resounding cries of “I told you so!”

Honorable Democratic Senators:

Thank you for your hard work on the current Health Care Reform bill.  Some of us are well aware of the vote in the senate and what it represents.  Unfortunately, many are unaware that suggestions of a Public Option to keep costs under control are grossly overstated, if not patently false.  What started out as a cost control has been so watered down to cater to the whims of the Blue-Dogs and Repugnicans that it can no longer accomplish anything but drive everyone straight to the waiting greedy arms of the private insurers and pharmaceutical companies.  If the Nobel Committee is still granting prizes for outstanding effort, though you may have accomplished nothing, and most of you didn’t really try that hard, you just might stand a chance at one.  If not, it may still gain you some good political exposure, which you may desperately need later.

But if you wish to actually help, you will do your best to give us what the vast majority of Americans want: A Public Option that is open to everyone who wishes it.  Without that simple stipulation, it is neither Public, nor an Option.  It will not provide an effective cost control, and will not ensure accountability of the private insurers.  If you wish to be proud of your accomplishments, if you wish to honor the memory of the late Ted Kennedy, you will take the opportunity afforded you in the debate process to restore this bill to what it ought to be for the benefit of the American people.

If this is not possible, and the bill must remain virtually powerless, then kill it.  Vote “no” when someone asks you if you want to disservice your constituency.  Vote “no” when someone asks you if you want to force millions of people to give billions of dollars to the great Synod of Extortion composed of corporate giants like Aetna, Humana and United Health Care (a misrepresentation at best, as it cares only for its own corporate health).  Vote “no” when someone asks you if you want to perpetuate the same slovenly system of minimal care and claim denials.

This, of course, will mean that you are voting to perpetuate a broken system: that you’re willing to bow down before the Repugnant Republican Right (including the masquerading Blue-Dogs); that you’re willing to admit that the Obama Administration is not only illegitimate, but incapable of carrying out matters of state in the best interests of its citizens; that you’re willing to admit that the Democrats have failed their constituency; that you’re willing to dismiss the life-long cause of Ted Kennedy as well as his memory; that you’re comfortable with allowing 45,000 people to die every year for lack of health care.

But could it be that you’ve met your goals?  When viewed from your perspective, this bill is a godsend, isn’t it?  It’s all right, because the majority of politicians are very comfortable with the system as it currently is, but now even more money will flow generously from the public to the greedy hands of private insurers and pharmaceutical companies, and thereby ensure the continued generosity of campaign contributions, and you can all pretend that everything is fine.  You can tell yourselves that policies like universal health care, while they may work for other places like Canada or France, are not a viable choice for the US.  You can tell everyone that a strong Public Option available to everyone would only raise costs for everyone, while minimizing care even further than it is now.  You can swear that this could not work, because the policy itself is deeply flawed – political concerns are completely irrelevant to the issue.  You’ll tell everyone that this bill is the best thing anyone could have hoped for, the best compromise that you could accomplish, and it’s just enough that some of your constituency will believe you.  It will be all right, because there are plenty of taxes to provide for your comfortable salaries, bonuses and stipends, and some of the best medical care in the country for the elite few on Capitol Hill.  There are enough rich people in the country who can afford decent health care for themselves, and they will be happy to continue to support you in your drive to maintain the status quo, so don’t give it a second thought.

While it’s true that the constituents vote, it’s the corporations that provide so much of that sweet frosting on top of the cake, after all.  Not only the Health [pretend to] Care industries, but the coal and oil industries are good providers.  The war companies’ contributions from those like Boeing, Lockheed, Xe, Halliburton/KBR are among the sweetest, since they get paid from the military coffers, which are funded by taxpayers, so the taxpayers are paying not only your salary, but your kick-backs as well.  Just spin the best arguments against cap and trade and for the continuation of the Iraq/Afghanistan war.  The earth is good for another century at least, every conservative loves a good war, and in a worst case scenario, you get out of politics and get a very well-paid position with one of your former contributors.

Go home, enjoy your Thanksgiving meal, spend time with your well-provided for family.  Sleep well at night, secure in the knowledge that none of your immediate relatives will ever need to work again.  You are one of the success stories that make this country great and perpetuate the American dream.  The rest of us will manage somehow, just as we always have.

There was a time when I was thoroughly snowed.  I thought a Disney world was possible.  I thought an evil man who was shown the true nature of his ways would reform and adopt a policy of philanthropy or minimally, good will and abstention from malevolent acts.  I thought that, given a choice of doing what’s right could outweigh greed and self-aggrandizement.  Of course, I was only 7 and also believed in Santa Claus.  By the time I got to middle school, I was thoroughly disillusioned.  By the time I was through high school, I was disabused of any notion that the creators of Mr. Rogers were anything but exceedingly well-paid, mentally challenged, or both.

It was not until later that I began looking at the mass of corruption that comprises our government that the last lingering shred of hope gave way to cynicism.  Mr. Smith not only failed in his attempt at a filibuster, he never even made it to Washington in the first place, and to this day it remains a great black pit, where the rest of us are bought and sold like so much slave labor.  We pay billions in taxes to support senators, congressmen, and a veritable army of politicos and functionaries, who then sell themselves off to the highest bidders, corporations who have paid good money to have laws written to ensure that we buy only what they offer at prices they set.  Elected officials, of course, get substantially discounted prices in addition to the bribes — nice job, if you can get it.

This is just a sample of the latest villainy.  The US Chamber of Commerce is now raising funds to buy an economist.  The economist will, for a price, concoct a projection that will show the impending economic collapse of the world as we know it should any kind of public health care option be passed into law.  Not that they need to go to all the trouble.  The Dumbocrats have already grabbed their ankles and invited Repugnicans to strip any efficacy out of the bill, except for what will most benefit the private health insurance companies.  In case this should fail, we’ve got Dumbocrats sabotaging the bill from within by adding restrictive pro-life amendments, which all but strip women’s rights and overturn Roe v. Wade.  If that should fail, there’s the White House itself pushing for a trigger to nullify any kind of public option.  In case that should fail, we’ve got Lieberman threatening to kill any bill that contains a public option.  Just to hedge their bets, the big drug companies — who’ve been making all sorts of deals with the Obama Administration to maintain their monopoly and exorbitant pricing – are going to raise their prices in advance to cover the amounts they stand to lose should a health care bill threaten their profit margin.

This weekend, a free health clinic — for which MSNBC’s Countdown spearheaded a fundraiser — took place in New Orleans, LA.  A report was posted by Rich Stockwell, Countdown producer, that bore ample testimony to the deplorable state of affairs propagated by the failure of our elected officials to do anything to endanger the profit margin of the private insurers.  Approximately 1000 people attended.  83% were employed, but had no affordable health insurance; this included an RN who spent his days caring for those who could afford what he could not.  90% of the patients had two or more diagnoses, and 82% had a life-threatening condition such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or hypertension.  One woman was dismissed without a treatment plan, having been diagnosed with stage 4 breast cancer.  She will soon be one of the 45000 people who die every year for lack of affordable health care.  No politicians were available to appear on Countdown to discuss the free health clinic, the implications of its findings, or their own culpability in the health crisis.

The worst, however, is yet to come.  What will happen when the health care reform bill fails and millions of people are mandated to pay exorbitant prices for health insurance they’re unable to afford?  What will happen when the public option fails and profits for private insurers drive more and more people toward bankruptcy?  What will happen during the next election when the same people who failed us buy their way back into office?  Cynicism will give way to a bleak acceptance of misanthropy.

In Mike Rogers’ last campaign in 2008, this is what some of his campaign funding looked like:
Pharma/Hlth Products $117,500
Hlth Professionals $96,200
Insurance $70,900

Why would such companies give him all that money? Do they really like Mike, or might they expect something in return? In the last election, I didn’t give Mike any money at all. Would he be disposed to act in my best interests in the legislative process knowing I will be no help in getting him reelected, or to act in the best interests of his contributors?

Mike states that health care reform, and the public option in particular, are against the principles of America, but one principle of the American marketplace is competition. Since the MacClaren-Ferguson act, the health insurance companies have been free of that particular constraint, and therefore free to create a cartel: a syndicate formed to regulate prices and output in some field of business. My own premiums have increased by 55% in the last 3 years alone. If health reform passes with a personal mandate as included in the bill by Senator Baucus (who, btw, got well over 1.5 million from health care concerns in his last campaign), that will guarantee millions more in premiums for the health insurers. This bill would ban exclusion, while allowing no competition. But when it seemed that the public option was gaining popularity last week, the insurance industry’s lobbyists reported that if any type of reform were passed, they would increase premiums by 111% in the coming years.

There is no basis in fact for any claim that a public option would take care away from anyone. The only thing purported to be cut is wasteful spending. If my cardiologist orders a CBC one week and my endocrinologist wants one the following week, I’d rather save my blood (and a few hundred dollars worth of wasteful spending) and tell him to call the other doctor and get the info from him. I want them to collaborate with each other anyhow. Health care being withheld as a result of a government run public option is a rumor created to scare people into defeating the public option. In fact, health care being taken away and disenrollment of policy holders has been part of the status quo of the private healthcare giants.

It’s common sense that the less money one pays out, the more money one has; therefore private insurers do everything possible to legally refuse coverage or reimbursement, and cancel policies they consider risky. CIGNA denied a liver transplant to a young woman, now dead. A healthy baby’s coverage was cancelled because he was too fat. Guardian insurance cancelled the policies of many Muscular Dystrophy patients, because one man’s annual care was in excess of $1 million. In a worst case scenario, where all the myths and misconceptions spread by spin-doctors were true, a government run system could not be worse than the treatment we now receive at the hands of the private insurers.

Mike argues against government run health care, though we already have it in the medicare and VA systems, in which the care is so good that well over 150 eligible congressment get their own health care through those systems. Furthermore, the other representatives have a health care bloc at their disposal, through which they can pick and choose their coverage from a number of companies to obtain competitive prices. It seems somewhat hypocritical that the people we elect can do this while denying that privilege from those who elected them. Mike warned that a government run health plan could determine which doctor you visit. My insurance carrier is UHC, and they do the same thing. They frequently make deals with different providers, laboratories, and hospitals, and tell me I must either see a different provider or pay steep deductibles. How would this be worse if a government run system did the same thing?

The public option offers competitive pricing and precludes price gouging, and if I can get good quality health care without paying an extra 25% to 30% for a company’s administrative costs, exorbitant executive salaries and high profit margins, I will go with a plan that’s easier on my wallet. The private insurers have become quite used to their high income — theirs is one of the few markets that showed billions in profit while most others saw the bottom fall out when the recession began. Equally comfortable are the many representatives who receive millions from private health enterprises on a yearly basis. Equally comfortable are the lobbyists who earn billions — the private insurers at the height of the campaigning this summer, were spending upwards of $1.5 million every single day to stop any reform.

On a good day, a Repugnican will admit that health care reform is necessary, but they will insist upon letting the private sector fix the problem to preclude government involvement. As this method has achieved no progress in the last 40 years — why should the private sector fix something which has made them obscenely wealthy? — I think it’s time for more affirmative measures.

Many say the president shot himself in the foot with regard to health care reform in an effort to eat that unattainable pie. With a clear majority of Democrats we voted into office to facilitate the changes touted by the Obama campaign, it would have made sense to present a health care reform bill to the House with twice as much as he wanted in the final product, knowing that half would disappear in the negotiations. Instead, precious time was wasted and momentum lost in the name of bipartisanship. Baucus was allowed to present a bill for “reform,” which excludes competition via a public option and guarantees billions more for a greedy industry via personal mandates and federal subsidies. This was done in hopes that the industry would relent and lower their premiums to a reasonable level, yet as soon as the bill passed the Finance Committee, health insurance representatives promised to increase premiums by more than 100% in the coming years.

While all this unfolded, Olympia Snowe was cultivated and brown-nosed as the one Repugnican who might vote for an extremely diluted version of what once might have led to health care reform. The only way she’d endorse a public option is if it’s so heavily triggered that it could never be realized, thus safeguarding the health insurance cartel from meaningful competition. She was, in my opinion, given far more significance than was ever deserved. Though she voted for the Baucus bill, she made it clear that this does not mean endorsing reform once the bill hits the floor. Her yes vote could be little more than a ploy to remain involved in the discussion over health care reform, rather then being pushed aside along with the rest of the Party of No while the Democrats do what is necessary, hobbled though they be by the Blue Dogs – another name for a Repugnican masquerading as a Democrat. It may be that she was worried about disregarding the will of 75% of her constituency who want meaningful health care reform with a robust public option.

Meanwhile, abuses of the public under the status quo continue unabated. While the senate placidly debated the issues last week, a CIGNA employee gestured “F*** you,” to a mother who came to their offices to complain. Her daughter had died because that company denied her a transplant. While the senate placidly debated, a healthy baby’s coverage was cancelled because he was too fat. While the senate placidly debated, Guardian insurance cancelled the policies of many Muscular Dystrophy patients, because one man’s annual care was in excess of $1 million – a bare fraction of what that company’s CEO made as a bonus last year – and canceling only that one man’s policy would have been blatantly illegal. While the senate placidly debated, another week passed and another 865 people died for lack of health insurance. 2993 Americans were killed on 9/11/01, and the government has since spent over $920 billion on unfounded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 45,000 Americans died last year because of skyrocketing medical costs, and the government has done nothing.  This must be somewhat akin to the theory of New Math; the number of casualties isn’t as important as the method of the killing.

And why does the US so blithely trot off to spurious wars even as it ranks among the worst nations in caring for its people? It is because the majority of our senators and congressmen over the last 9 years have been getting quietly rich on kickbacks and campaign contributions from health insurance corporations, big pharmaceuticals, health professionals, and independent military contractors. With over a million from insurance and health professionals, and the content of the Finance Committee bill, is there any real question of who authored the Baucus bill or whom Senator Baucus really supports?

Clearly, the “conflict of interest” concept is foreign to the Senate Committee on Ethics, which explains how any discussion of health reform could include any Senator receiving campaign contributions from the health insurance industry. Equally interesting is potential application of the oft controversial Honest Services Law. Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia interprets that law as that “officeholders and employees owe a duty to act only in the best interests of their constituents and employers.” Is it truly in our best interests to allow an unbridled health insurance cartel to bleed us white with premium hikes and increasing deductibles? Is it truly in our best interests to refuse a bill with a robust public option when 75% of Americans, including doctors and nurses, are in favor of either a public option or a single payer plan? A determined lawyer or two could make quite a case or two – were it not for the fact that they’d be subject to countless reprisals by those happy with the status quo.

They way I see it, we have two choices. We can do what we have been conditioned to do, which is to sit quietly by, vote occasionally, and allow our government representatives to do as they see fit, policing themselves when they see fit, and enacting legislations to benefit whomsoever they see fit, including their top contributors. We can allow the status quo to continue, grab our ankles and brace ourselves for the inevitable. Or we can do once again what we did last November, cast off the apprentice’s robes, and let our professorial side show. We can use our resources to contact our elected officials, school them in what we want, and make it plain that reelection to their cushy posts hinges upon showing their allegiance to their constituency rather than their campaign contributors and lobbyists. We can back these assertions with substance by enlisting our families, friends, and acquaintances to repeat these lessons to their representatives, and then use their vote as the ultimate report card.

As of this posting, I have contacted all of my representatives at least twice. I have contacted every blue-dog Senator at least twice, especially when they send form letters advising me of the importance of proceeding cautiously, or other such “foot-dragging, knuckle-dragging behaviors (yes, I’m a staunch Graysonite). I have written and called Harry Reid in hopes that he will bend to the public will and put a public option and public option plus into the bill sent to the senate floor. I have written to the White House to tell Obama what I expect, along with a few choice words for Mr. Emanuel. I have asked my exceedingly modest number of Facebook and Twitter followers are to call their representatives (202.224.3121 is the general switchboard, 202.224.3542 is for Harry Reid) to make their demands. And so I invite you to reject the stupidity of the status quo and raise a little hell. You never know what you might get if you ask for it.

I can console myself somewhat with the fact that most of the current scandals and hypocrisies involve Republicants. In the last month, we’ve become intimately introduced to the private life of John Ensign of Nevada. Ensign didn’t do much, other than have an affair. Not that I care whose bed he shares; the sticky part is that he belongs to Promise Keepers, a Christian group whose members pledge to abide by biblical principles to build strong marriages. We need not ask about his stance on DOMA or gay marriage, of course; being committed to biblical principals. He wants to respect the institution of marriage, hence his 1998 demand that President Clinton resign (and subsequent vote for impeachment), and his suggestion that Senator Larry Craig (of the notably wide stance) resign after his bathroom incident. But press statements indicate that his marriage is stronger than ever – we’ll ignore the fact that his wife was nowhere to be seen at the time. There is no need to discuss that he’s anti-abortion and pro gun rights while touting small-government principles. While it seems that arrangements have been made to pay off his former mistress, that’s not necessarily hypocritical, merely illegal.

Meanwhile, Mark Sanford, governor of South Carolina, demonstrated his own brand of ethics. Sanford, who firmly believes in the sanctity of marriage, opposes civil unions and adoptions for gay couples – yet believes every child deserves a mother and a father — left his wife and four children on Father’s Day to go AWOL on an Argentinean fling with his soul-mate. Not only did he abandon his elected office to carry on this affair, he neglected to inform his subordinates, failed to arrange for state business to be carried out in his absence, and used state funds to finance his dalliances. He, like Ensign, has made no moves to resign his office, and seems to have some support as well from other sources. Not only did Sarah Palin help by stealing the spotlight to announce her own abdication of responsibilities, but members of the increasingly publicized C Street “Family” of DC seem to have been involved in crisis management for the two adulterers.

Congressman Zach Wamp told the Chattanooga Times Free Press that the C Street residence is a place where members (elected representatives) can go and hold each other accountable. In an interview with the Knoxville News Sentinel, he said that “The C Street residents have all agreed they won’t talk about their private living arrangements… and he intends to honor that pact.” When asked if this was a secretive group, Wamp flatly rejected the notion, and enforced his reasoning by promptly contradicting himself: “It’s not secretive. It’s that that’s the only way something like this can exist.” Ergo, residents will hold each other accountable, but have agreed they won’t talk about it, but this silence is not to be interpreted as secrecy. In his speech to the press after returning from his unannounced absence, Mark Sanford alluded to having been counseled by the C Street “Family.”

Former Republican Congressman Steve Largent of Oklahoma told The Tulsa World newspaper that he, as a former resident of C Street, participated in a discussion among its brethren regarding Senator John Ensign’s recent indiscretions. “Largent said the group who confronted Ensign left unsure of its impact but eventually the meeting produced a, quote, ‘good result.‘” Member Congressman Chip Pickering of MS also enjoyed a good result with a Ms. Elizabeth Creekmore-Byrd while at the C Street residence, and is currently being sued by Mrs. Leisha Pickering for alienation of affection. One might think it odd to conduct an illicit affair at a building formally declared as a church, but according to Jeff Sharlet’s The Family, there seems to be a different set of moral values for members and non-members of this establishment. Due to the C Street agreement of non-secretive silence, of course, the public will have no knowledge of the results of the meetings with Ensign, Sanford and possible others. These public servants, therefore, are accountable only to themselves, not to those members of the public, whom they represent.

Largent’s main concern in regard to Ensign and Sanford “is about their personal well being and their families‘ well being. …whether they stay in office or not, I think that‘s a calculation that only they can make.” Would that Largent were as concerned about the quality of representation of their constituents. Largent’s code of ethics seems to have mellowed somewhat over the last decade. In regard to the appropriate course of action for former President Bill Clinton after the Lewinsky scandal, Largent didn’t think “…any reasonable people could say that the president should not resign. I think even reading the president‘s own censure resolution, you can‘t come away with any other conclusion than that this president should resign. It‘s the honorable thing to do.”

I will not say that Jefferson B Sessions is an inbred racist bigot unqualified to question a first grader. I have neither the time nor inclination to verify his parentage, nor do I believe in torturing children. From the start of the Sotomayor judicial confirmation hearings, Sessions and his cronies showed little regard for Judge Sotomayor’s legal record, and instead concentrated on what they felt was most important. Every question seemed to revolve around her ancestry and a few sensational soundbytes taken out of context. Naturally, the judge answered their questions equably and sensibly, while Pat Buchanan sat fuming and muttering inanities about affirmative action and discrimination against white males, who are best suited for everything.

I also caught part of an address today on the occasion of the NAACP’s 100^th anniversary by Martin Luther Obama. I have listened to many Obama speeches before, but it seemed that for this particular occasion, he decided to doff his usual aplomb, cultivate a subtle southern drawl, and emulate the impassioned speech patterns for which Dr. King was so well known. Mind you, I agreed with almost everything he said, but the delivery, which so blatantly pandered to the audience, indicates that he’s a little too adept at changing his appearance to suit his needs. Since theater is part of politics, I let this one slide.

But Obama has once again proven that putrid practices are bipartisan. I was surprised and disgusted this week when I learned that our Fierce Advocate in Chief who so vociferously touted transparency is now attempting to repeal not statutes which infringe upon civil rights, but those which try to guarantee them. Specifically, he wants to rescind the requirement of recording interrogation sessions. Though the CIA and military (and possibly the White House) made sure that some of the more incriminatory tapes disappeared, our leader feels it would be much more expedient to skip the tapes altogether. Perhaps he feels that nonexistent tapes are the most transparent, but my next regular missive to the White House is going to suggest that he not try quite so hard to continue the worst practices demonstrated by the previous administration.

One final reminder to the good citizens of Nevada, South Carolina, and Mississippi: If you have opinions about the character and career choices of your elected representatives, I would like to take this opportunity to remind you to contact your elected officials. And to those from all the other states, bear in mind that some Powers That Be are still very much opposed to giving us what we want, such as affordable, clean energy and affordable health care. Regardless of the reason, I’m sure that our representatives welcome the input of their constituents, just as their websites tell us. Who knows? One day, hypocrisy and maintaining the status quo just might give way to popular opinion.

* American Heritage® Dictionary, Fourth Edition

]]> http://thevillagegidiot.com/wordpress/?feed=rss2&p=185 http://thevillagegidiot.com/wordpress/?p=160 http://thevillagegidiot.com/wordpress/?p=160#comments Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:02:01 +0000 Gid http://thevillagegidiot.com/wordpress/?p=160 Like millions of others around the globe, I have been completely absorbed in the political events in Iran for the past 12 days. Before commenting on any of these events, I want to add my .02 to those who’ve already thanked Nico Pitney of the Huffington Post for maintaining an almost continuous live blog of events as they unfold. I also want to add my voice to those who call for the simplest of freedoms.

In many of my posts, I have criticized the US government for neglecting, withholding, or simply ignoring civil rights, such as privacy and equal treatment for minorities. While I have not changed my stance on these, the current state of affairs has made me more aware of the rights I currently do enjoy, such as walking down the street. Despite the arrest, detention or simple oppression of journalists, modern technology has allowed almost immediate dissemination of the news that the state-controlled propaganda dare not tell. We have read tweets, blogs, and emails, seen photos and videos captured by those brave enough to wield cameras or cell phones, that provide in chilling detail the lengths to which the current regime will go to maintain control.

The current government of Iran has made one thing perfectly clear: it has neither good will nor even respect for its people, remorselessly inflicting serious bodily injury or death at the hands of government officials, either the police – who, according to most reports, seem to try to pay some small attention to the law and mandates of society – or a militia whose tactics more closely resemble those of terrorists. The people asked for a voice in their government, and their government answered with insults, calling them weeds. The people had the temerity to object, and their government answered with violence. Iran’s regime may seem to be discriminatory in regard to women and minorities, but no discrimination was apparent in the beatings, shootings, or other deterrents we’ve witnessed over the last week.

On a side note, there have been objections to the choice of some journalists to show certain graphic scenes in their entirety. I respectfully disagree with such criticism, and flatly reject any notion which suggests these reports be in any way censored. This is not intended to pander to the bloodlust of those with a morbid curiosity, but rather to serve as a reminder of the capabilities to which some will resort if they deem it necessary. Those who feel they have mastered this lesson, or wish to spare their children such introductions may exercise their right to turn their heads, but clearly, the human race has not yet learned that indiscriminate harm is wrong, and needs an occasional refresher. Again, I will point as an example to the Dachau Memorial’s simple message: Never Again. And before I listen to anyone object that there is no comparison, that millions died in the Holocaust, I challenge that person to present a reasonable proposal indicating just how many people may die before moral outrage is justified.

Religion, of course, must claim its part in this. It is, after all, the country is called an Islamic Republic, with cabinets of clerics and an Ayatollah at its head. Alas, their clerics are only as godly as ours, and thus are inherently susceptible to the same misjudgments. While I’m no religious scholar, in the past week, some phrases from the Qur’an have been in the media. To wit, that “killing a person unjustly is the same as killing all of humanity, and saving a person is the same as saving all humanity.” Some have tried to claim that they’re defending the upstanding citizens from marauding demonstrators – the Qur’an commands defense if an enemy army attacks. That might have worked had any demonstrator attacked someone other than a Basiji who hadn’t attacked first. Even then, violence is sanctioned by the Qur’an only until the enemies stop their aggression. It prohibits attacks against innocent bystanders or non-combatants. If this weren’t enough hypocrisy, protesters at Baharestan Square today were descended upon by a force of about 500 Basiji and police who had hidden themselves in a Mosque (so much for sanctity). The guard opened fire on the protestors, killing several.

Not unsurprisingly, I have heard a number of people sharply criticizing Iran’s government. This I can accept, and even support. I cannot, however, support those who make broad, sweeping statements about Iran implying US superiority, morally and ethically. But mounting such a high horse makes getting thrown that much more dangerous. Consider the fact that both the elections of 2000 and 2004 were disputed; our own government is not averse to glaring demonstrations of self-interest. We have gone to war under false pretenses, and are harboring war criminals we have as yet failed to prosecute. We have people who have burned churches, even murdered in them while claiming to be good Christians. We still have a long way to go with equal rights for all citizens. Polls show that 72% of Americans are in favor of a public option for health care, and yet we are faced with a House full of our own representatives who are fully prepared to side with the AMA and other lobbyists and blatantly dismiss our wishes. We do, however, at least have the ability to speak our minds to our representatives without fear of reprisal.

It’s the middle of the night in Tehran, and somewhere, there are those standing on their roofs calling “Allaho Akbar” while Basiji violate homes and citizens. I hope it’s not too long until Iranians are afforded the liberty of free speech and assembly, and a night when they can sleep in peace.

Dear Sirs:

I fully expect this letter to land on deaf ears, as it were.  There’s nothing I can say that has not already been said to little or no avail, yet I feel it is my duty to add one more feeble voice to those of others who’ve already spoken.  My request is this:  Please help put an end to hatred.  Report what you will, but do so without vilifying any scapegoats, without inspiring undue fear in the masses, without encouraging uprisings among those not yet ready to think for themselves and act responsibly of their own accord.

Take a moment to read the column of Frank Rich, which appeared in the New York Times on June 14, 2009. Fox may hold a dim view of this newspaper; this does not, however, detract from the validity of the arguments and facts presented here.  The bottom line is that journalism carries with it a great responsibility.  While I respect the fact that Fox is a business with the prime focus of earning money, as an entity whose prime focus is journalism, Fox News has a responsibility to the public: to inform.  While I certainly agree that your viewers should be informed about others’ views, I feel it should be done in a way that inspires thought and careful consideration rather than knee-jerk, emotional reactions likely to cause at least worry, at worst violent insurgence.

I ask that you remind your writers, anchors, commentators and reporters of a few crucial items:

1. We are in a period of economic difficulty; in this climate, people are more susceptible to worry and fear, and therefore more likely to react negatively and demonstratively to various stimuli.  I am not the only one who has noticed the sharp uprising of violent crime and acts of terrorism since last year’s financial crisis.  These frightened people are among your audience.

2. We are at a critical time in our nation’s history.  It has been a mere 50 years since the civil rights movement, and there at still many in this country who have not yet accepted the equality of black people, let alone a black president.  And despite the fact that this country was founded because the settlers wished (among others) religious freedom, there are many in this country who recognize only their own religion as valid or tolerable.  These intolerant people are among your audience.

3. There are those who are predisposed to violence even in the best of times, who will look for any excuse to lash out at those whom they perceive as an enemy.  There are religious extremists both within our borders and without who require little more than a trivial ideal to justify crimes up to and including murder.  These extremists are among your audience

The members of the secret service have difficulty enough without added pressure from those who would argue that our president is neither a full citizen nor of the “right” faith.  Nor am I prepared to experience a civil war.  Nor is Obama the only target to from which to choose.

In light of this fact as well as those above, I ask you to recognize that enough people have been injured.  I ask you to recognize that enough people have died.  I ask you to hold true to a judicious form of journalism which focuses on educating the public and allowing them to draw them own conclusions, and a form of journalism that encourages tolerance rather than narrow-mindedness.

Respectfully Submitted,

Gid

One day came a bright knight to the land, and saw that the wicked rulers must be deposed. He spoke to the people of good things, of a government that treated everyone fairly and fought economic ruin. He condemned unjust war, unjust imprisonment, and foul punishments. He spoke of governmental transparency and answerability. He spoke of goodness for all, even those who looked or lived differently than most, for he was himself a minority. He spoke of change and the end of fear, and the good work to turn the world that is into the world that should be. And when we doubted, he told us, “Yes, we can!” And everywhere were posted banners bearing the likeness of the knight with the shibboleth of “Change” or “Hope” affixed thereto. Why, to this day, I have a banner proclaiming hope in the window of my carriage.

And so it was that the people came to believe that change was possible and there could be hope for good things to come. And the people raised their voices and spoke, and said that those who believed as the evil ones believed must rule no more, and the knight became ruler of the land. And the people watched hopefully… But this is, of course a fairy tale, and fairy tales, as we all know, bear just enough resemblance to reality to make them plausible with enough fantasy to make them highly unlikely if not altogether impossible.

When I voted for change, I was hoping for a number of things, such as an end to the vile games of Shrub & Co. making people disappear for years at a time without due process and torturing them. In response to a fear-mongering campaign by He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named defending “enhanced interrogation techniques” and other distasteful acts, President Obama made a speech of his own on May 21 at the National Archives, where he said that “our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions… we too often set [our] principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford.” He further added that “the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable” In other words, it is clear that the actions of the previous administration were not in accordance with the law. They acted unlawfully. They committed crimes, and lied about them.

When one of Obama’s first post-election speeches reiterated the fact that he intended to “look forward,” i.e., not push for indictment of the previous administration on charges of war crimes – as indeed other nations have begun to do – I thought perhaps that he was wisely waiting for the Department of Justice to do its job in the matter. This may yet turn out to be the case. We’ve also heard very little in regard to inquests into such matters by the Congress, though again, this may well be underway. We have found out through previously classified reports recently released by the CIA, that the “enhanced interrogation techniques” defended by He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named as justifiable because of the intelligence they yielded, failed to yield any useful information at all. In short, they were classified (ergo hidden) by the previous administration to cover up failure as well as crime. But I digress…

Obama criticized unconstitutional detainment: “For over seven years, we have detained hundreds of people at Guantanamo. During that time, the system… succeeded in convicting a grand total of three suspected terrorists… Instead of bringing terrorists to justice, efforts at prosecution met setbacks, cases lingered on, and in 2006 the Supreme Court invalidated the entire system.” Obama said that this indefinite detention was “beyond the rule of law. This is true, as due process is mandated by the constitution.

Then he said “Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and… [detainees] must be prevented from attacking us again. However, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded… We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.” And how will he keep them from attacking us again? By keeping them imprisoned, of course, although no actual crime has been committed. By having laws written by which such detainment becomes legal – just as Shrub & Co. had their attorneys write briefs which legalized torture. These detainees were short-changed.

In 2004 during his US Senate race, Barack Obama went on record calling for the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In March 2007, in a debate with Alan Keyes, Obama criticized Keyes for his views on GLBT relationships, stating that civil rights such as employment, housing, hospital visitation, transfer of property, are rights for everybody, not just for some people. In a subsequent pre-presidential interview, he called DOMA an “unnecessary imposition on what have been the traditional rules governing marriage and how states interact on the issues of marriage.” In August of 2008, he told us that his job as President was going to “make sure that the legal rights, that have consequences… for loving, same-sex couples all across the country… are recognized and enforced by my Whitehouse and by my Justice Department.”

Just two months earlier, Michelle Obama told the DNC’s Gay & Lesbian Leadership Council that, “Barack believes that we must fight for the world as it should be, a world where together we work to reverse discriminatory laws like DOMA and Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell… where our federal laws don’t discriminate against same-sex relationships, including equal treatment for any relationship recognized under state law… a world that recognizes that equality in relationships, family and adoption rights is not some abstract principle, it’s about whether millions of LGBT Americans can finally live lives marked by dignity and freedom.” This is the change I voted for.

Just a few days ago, the Obama administration handed down a brief from the Department of Injustice, upholding DOMA and citing its merits. The lawyers likened same-sex unions to incest and pedophilia; is this the dignity we’re working toward? DOMA’s Part 3 – barring same-sex couples from any federal benefits – was cited as a “cautious policy of federal neutrality towards a new form of marriage… [that] does not discriminate against gays for federal benefits,” even though Part 3 explicitly states that the federal government will not recognize a same-sex marriage, even should a state choose to do so. Is this the equality that was foretold? Where’s my change?

In an interview in November 2007, Obama said, “I will work [for]… a full repeal of ‘Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell’… That work should have started long ago. It will start when I take office. America is ready to get rid of the ‘Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell’ policy. All that is required is leadership.” Just a month before, he’d said that, “Anybody who is willing to serve our country and die on a battlefield for us and are patriots, that’s the criteria for whether or not they should be able to serve in our military.” Just before he took office, he proclaimed, “I think that it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something that I have been consistent on, and something that I intend to be consistent on during my presidency.” This is the change I voted for. While I’ve never had inclination or aptitude for military service, those who choose such a career should be able to pursue it. The government, in theory, should be an equal opportunity employer.

And yet, Captain James Pietrangelo of the US Army was fired after 13 years of service; Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach, an F-15 fighter pilot, a decorated 18-year veteran of the United States Air Force was tossed out; Lieutenant Dan Choi of the Army National Guard, Arabic linguist, was given the boot. Three colossal wastes of time, training and talent because the Powers That Be did not condone their choice of bed partners while off duty. Since Obama took office, he has not repealed DADT, he has not pushed Congress to repeal it, he has not ceased investigation of new cases, nor has he ended dismissals under the policy. In a review of Pietrangelo’s case, his administration upheld the policy as “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion.” Under condition of anonymity, a Democratic aide to the Senate Armed Services Committee told Lara Jakes of the AP that a review of DADT was “not a high priority” and that the issue would be looked at some unspecified time before the end of Obama’s term. These servicemen and many others like them have clearly been short-changed.

This morning as we were getting into the car, my partner looked at the copy of Shepard Fairey’s poster hanging in the window and said, “The HOPE poster is fading. There’s something poetic in that.” Indeed. And they all lived hopefully ever after.