Failing presidents & hypocrisy

I've heard the word "hypocrite" a lot lately, referring to Democrats who complained about Republicans who pledged to obstruct Obama at every opportunity and yet seem determined to do exactly the same thing with Donald Trump.  It isn't the same and here is why.

1.  In spite of what we heard on Right Wing Talk Radio & TV, Obama is not and never was a communist out to destroy our country.  He is a centrist, committed to working across the isle, many of whose ideas actually reflected Republican ideas.  Take the ACA.  It was a program very similar in its most important details to a health care proposal put forward by the right wing Heritage Foundation.  It was centered around the private sector and enfranchised the insurance industry.  Had he truly been a leftist, Obama would have argued for Medicare for all as Bernie Sanders has done.

Trump, on the other hand, seems to be poised to blow up the entire government.  He has already skirted many of the common practices of the past such as releasing his tax returns so we can all see whether his interests conflict with those of the American people.  He has chosen to avoid intelligence briefings, either because he truly believes there is nothing he needs to learn or because he doesn't trust the intelligence agencies.  His cabinet appointees so far seem almost all to fall into one of two categories... either they have no experience and no knowledge of the area they will be heading or they are committed to destroying the role of the very agency they will head.

2. Obama clearly fell in line with the general trajectory of history.  Whether we like what he dd or not, he didn't do anything that made people go, "What?"

Even before he is inaugurated, Trump is already breaking with policies and ideas that are foundational to our security both nationally and internationally.  His thoughtless actions regarding our treaties have already begun to push Asian allies towards China and he has unnecessarily provoked China by skirting the one China doctrine.  His relationship to Russia is troubling at best.  His calls for the US military to commit war crimes and his commitment to sidestepping accepted rules that have to do with nepotism and conflicts of interest are equally troubling. 

On the national level, he is either allowing or directing the dismantling of many of the social safety nets upon which many people depend. 

3. Obama knew what government is and what its role is.  Trump doesn't seem to understand that government is not a business and the rules by which it operates are not the same.  If his business fails, it can declare bankruptcy and at least Donald walks away unscathed.  It has happened multiple times.  If government fails... that is something altogether different.

4. Obama knows that when the president speaks, things happen, so he is careful about what he says.  Trump has no such wisdom or he enjoys the chaos that happens when he says something unwise.  In either case... it is not good.

5. Obama has a heart to leave the world a better place.  You may not agree with his vision of that, but you cannot argue the point.  Nothing that Trump has ever done in his entire life would indicate that he has any concerns beyond himself.  There is nothing beyond his skin that he seems to truly care about beyond the way that it impacts him.

6.  The best you could say about the Republican obstructionists might be that some were acting consistently with their values - that they hate the federal government and literally want it to fail so by obstructing a president as thoughtful and charismatic as Obama who began his presidency with a real mandate, they were working to that end.  And now they find a kindred soul in Trump, who wants to see government curtailed not out of some political ideology but because it constrains his personal behavior.

Democratic obstructionists will be working to preserve the rights and safety nets, some of which have been in place for decades and upon which many people depend.  Without those safety nets, people will die.

So... are there areas where Dems should support Trump?  Say, like if he proposes working on infrastructure?  I have mixed feelings.  I should say that I believe he will only propose improving the infrastructure if he will personally benefit from it.  Still there clearly are areas where he may see his self-interests and those of the nations align... so yes, I would argue that we work on those issues with him.  But we must never allow those issues to cause us to lose sight of the other things he is doing or allowing to not be done.

If Trump and the Republicans in office work to tear apart Social Security, Medicare, and the ACA (all of which they propose to do), I will do what I can to obstruct them and call upon my representatives to do the same.  I want them to fail there.  If they want to tear up treaties and alliances with other nations and put the entire world at risk, I will work to obstruct them and call upon my representatives to do the same.  I want them to fail.  If they continue to enfranchise hate groups and normalize the kind of behavior I would punish my grandson for, I will do what I can to obstruct them and call upon my representatives to do the same.   I want them to fail.  If the Republicans continue their march to destroy our government by undermining trust in all facets of it, I will do what I can to obstruct them and call upon my representatives to do the same.  I want them to fail.  If the Trump administration actually becomes the kleptocracy I expect it will be, I will do what I can to obstruct them and call upon my representatives to do the same. I want them to fail.

Iran deal... what's at stake?

I have to say that I'm more than  little puzzled at the strong reactions against the proposed deal with Iran.  It significantly attenuates Iran's ability to produce a nuclear weapon.  It opens the doors for inspections wider than they have ever been.  It strengthens the pro-western factions in their government.  It offers relief to the crushing burden of sanctions, borne largely by the least able.It strengthens the strongest enemy of the radical Sunni groups like ISIS. 

What are the arguments for the downsides?  It does allow for an infusion of cash to Iran and will cause a shift in power in the region, but that looks to happen regardless of whether the agreement is embraced by the US.  It has been argued that more sanctions might get us a better deal... but the European community has said that they will not observe sanctions any longer so this will happen regardless of what the US does.   Iran is not trustworthy.  Again, nothing changes there.  At least with the agreement there are inspections.  In addition, it calls for the dismantling of a significant percentage of their centrifuges which would push out the time frame needed to procure enough material to make a bomb from as little as 2 months (currently) to a year or more.  Finally, if Iran broke the agreement, that would catalyze the world community against them. 

Significant leaders in Israel are frightened by the agreement but other significant leaders have spoken in favor.  An important observation here is that Iran, while not being trustworthy has also shown itself to not be crazy.  In spite of rhetoric to the contrary, they have not taken steps that would threaten their future as a nation.  Israel on the other hand is crazy.  They have shown repeatedly that they will do whatever is necessary to defend themselves and that they would not hesitate to use matching force and more.  If Iran was to produce a nuclear weapon and use it against Israel, it is abundantly clear that Israel would respond with their significantly larger nuclear array and Iran would be completely annihilated.  Without the continued focus of the world on Iran's capacity to build nuclear weapons, it is precisely the Israel capacities that push them to develop these weapons.  Many military leaders in Israel believe that this deal does indeed serve to make Israel more secure, not less, and will serve to stop Iran's program to develop these weapons.

So short of diplomacy, what is the option another than another war costing trillions of dollars and 100's of thousands of lives?  We have seen the long term results of wars in the Middle East and they are not positive.  Given the strong points of the deal vs. the single option of war, why would anyone argue against it?

The cynic in me sees only one reason - oil.  If sanctions are lifted and there is no war, Iran will likely flood the world market with oil, driving down the cost - they need the money.  Fracking and enhanced drilling techniques will become too expensive to be practical and profits will drop significantly for the oil companies.  From what I can see, the only ones who benefit from this agreement failing are the oil companies and the end result is once again seeing young men and women dying to preserve the profits of multinationals.

Why the Hate?

I have to admit that I've been more than a little puzzled by the political discourse regarding Obama.  Yes, I know political discourse is always marked by exaggeration and hyperbole, but the stuff around Obama has just seemed over the top.  There still are accusations that he is not an American, born in the USA.  There are still prominent folk who claim he is really a Muslim.  There is the constant buzz that he is a Socialist.  Others say that he is the biggest threat to US security in the history of the nation.   Simply put, none of the above is remotely true.  Love him or not, he was born in Hawaii, is not a Muslim, is not a Socialist by any reasonable definition, and is clearly not the greatest threat to US security ever.

Many, especially in the African American community, have blamed the over the top hatred on race.  Many on the right protest that they are not racist and his race has nothing to do with their disdain of Obama.  Now, I know many folk far right of center who would never vote for Obama who are not racist and for whom race does not have any relevance.  Still, I cannot help but think that the depth of invective against him is out of proportion to his policies.  Indeed, most of his policies are literally continuations of those begun under the Bush administration.  If that isn't about race, then what in the world is it?

And then today I saw a photo of a bumper sticker... it had the Obama logo with a circle and a line through it with the tag line - "Don't Re-Nig 2012."  At first I wondered whether it was something made up by an Obama supporter to inflame the base so I googled it.  I found a vendor selling the stickers along with other far right slogans.  If that's not about race, then I have no idea what is.

why I won't vote for any of the Republicans

OK... anyone who knows me knows that there is a simple answer - BECAUSE THEY'RE REPUBLICANS!  There are clearly some Republican stands that do not work for me.  In my estimation, they are all too quick to throw the poor under the bus and to shred the little safety net we have.  As a party, they have focused on what I think is the wrong issue when they talk about the deficit while what we really need are jobs.  Yes, yes, yes, the Dems are not much better, but they are a little better.  So here are a few of my reasons with each of the four remaining candidates.

Newt...  character counts.  He has none.  We can look at his hypocrisy as he claims to be a "family values" candidate while having done more to sully marriage than anyone I have ever known, read, or read of.  And while involved in despicable behavior, he had the nerve to condemn Bill Clinton for similar acts.  I know he says it was not about the sexual acts but about lying to congress, but when the moderator of the South Carolina debate asked about his behavior with his 2nd wife, he said it was despicable to ask such questions in the midst of a presidential campaign.  Evidently it was fine to ask such questions of a sitting president?!  He claims to have changed.  People do change.  I don't believe him.  His mean-spiritedness through the debates shows that he is the same old Newt.  There are those who talk of him as having "big thoughts" and "great ideas."  When his big thoughts and great ideas include essentially doing away with child labor laws, they sound like terrible ideas and small thoughts to me.

Rick Santorum... I respect a person living their faith and bringing it to play in their politics.  Every single political view that I hold is impacted by my understanding of who Jesus is and what it means to follow him.  That said, Santorum's understanding of what it means to be a Christian is, in significant places, diametrically opposed to mine.  And while I believe one can act ofor public policy changes based on his or her faith, public policy can never find its sole or even primary justification in anyone's faith.  To believe that birth control should be outlawed is so far outside of the mainstream and so far outside of anything that is positive for our country that I can't imagine him being president.  Add to that gender views that take us back at least a century.   I guess I expect more from him since he calls himself a Christian and a Roman Catholic.  When he completely dismisses the rest of the "pro-life" views of his church without a blink, I wonder how much of his political views really are based in faith.

Mitt... First, running a government is not the same as running a business and anyone who thinks it is or should be, doesn't understand government.  Add to that the fact that his role in business was to purchase weak companies, strip them of anything of value, and essentially throw the rest away.  Even if business and government were analogous,  that is not how I want to see government run.  That he is so incredibly rich that he doesn't have to work, makes more in a week off of investments that I do in a decade from work, and seems to see nothing wrong in paying a lower percentage of taxes than the vast majority of the 99% makes me wonder whether he really gets it.  It also seems that he wants this job too bad.  He seems to switch his views depending on what he thinks will get him elected... perhaps not an unusual trait for a politician but still one that I won't vote for if I can help it and it just seems too obvious with him.  I do respect that he gives a much larger percentage of his income to charities than any other politician I know of. 

Ron Paul... he's the one that really scares me.  I don't think the Republican establishment would allow him to win, but I think he is the candidate who would be most able to beat Obama.  Paul's commitment to reduce the role of the military and to end our empire is very attractive to me and to many liberals.  His commitment to enforce the parts of the constitution that protect individuals from the powers of the state likewise is attractive.  His libertarian views regarding drugs also are attractive to many liberals.  His consistency is a wonderful thing in the days of politicians reading polls and changing their views like their ties.  He could strip off many liberal voters who are disenchanted by Obama's militaristic bent or who drank the Koolaid that he is a socialist and expected him to act like one.  He isn't and he hasn't!  At the same time, I think that many Republicans who find those views distasteful would still vote for him just to vote against Obama.   I think he might gain far more than he would lose.  The parts that I don't like about Ron Paul scare me more than the parts I do like entice me... he is commitment to shredding the safety net for the poor, doing away with government involvement in ensuring safe food, water, air, and drugs.  He does not believe government has a role providing an adequate education for all or providing foreign aid that can make a difference in saving the lives of literally millions overseas.  Those views are more than I can take.  Add his racist statements of the past and he is completely off my list too.

When I listen to what each of them envisions for the country, for the world, and look at the stands and characteristics they bring to the table,   none are the kind of leader that I believe we need in this difficult time.  None bring the kind of vision of the future I want to see implemented.

So that leaves me with Obama.   Folk who know me also know that I've never been a huge fan of Obama.  During the Democratic primary I described him to my friends as a centrist and looking at his work in office, that is exactly what he has been... and I'm anything but a centrist politically.  I'm not thrilled... but I like him much, much, much better than any of the above.  I wouldn't vote for a third party candidate even if there was one I loved because I'd be too afraid one of the above might win.

So, given the choices, for me, it's Obama 2012.

Massachusetts Mess

I have to begin by saying, Obama was my third choice in the Democratic primary. If I'm to be truthful, he hasn't done - or not done - anything that has surprised me. In spite of the right wing mantra that he is a leftist/marxist/communist/revolutionary out to destroy western culture, he was and is far too centrist and corporatist for me.

So what happened in Massachusetts? There are already tons of folk out there commenting and there are lots of good analysis being written. This morning I read Jeffrey Feldman's take on Frameshop and it is a good one. I have a read of what happened that I haven't seen anyone else saying yet so here we go.

For thirty years the Republicans have been telling us that big government doesn't work and that politicians are not to be trusted. Then they have spent much of that time wielding their power to make that true. Inept people have been put in places of authority. Funding has been cut to important projects. Obvious needs have been ignored. The will for the common good has been supplanted by individualism. The vision of a better society has been replaced by the profit motive.

At the same time, there is something in human nature that tells us that there are some important things that cannot be done by individuals and that should not be done for profit. We saw the results of greed unchecked on wall street and sensed that profit for wealthy insiders with power was behind many of the political decisions being made. The time was ripe for change and Obama's message resonated with many. "Yes we can" spoke to many. People instinctively knew that healthcare is too important to be run as a for profit enterprise. People knew that the war in Iraq was not as it had been presented to us and that Afghanistan was a much more complicated picture than can be solved at the end of an M16. Torture and mercenaries running loose without constraint are contrary to all of the values we claim to hold as a people. People knew that our relationships with other nations are critical for our future. People sensed that some body had to rein in the excesses of large multi-nationals and banks "too big to fail." Transparency in government is central to who we should be.

Obama's campaign of hope for change hooked all of those sensibilities. And he was elected. Hope reigned. People expected the role of government to be vindicated and the common good to take center stage. People expected change to happen as quickly and completely as it had during the Republican Revolution of the 80's. Their dreams quickly evaporated. Wall street was bailed out and surged forward while bankers received huge bonuses. The auto industry was raked over the coals and ended up getting considerably less money with lots more trings attached. Auto workers took it personally and felt that once again, the system was rigged for those with money and power. Health care reform sputtered and none of the hoped for benefits materialized. Insurance companies received a windfall of millions of new customers with no constraints on their fees while those who don't buy into this new windfall are fined and those with expensive insurance plans, which may be priced that high for any number of reasons, are taxed. Any positive results seem to have been compromised right out of the bill. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue. Those who clearly broke the law in the prosecution of the war have been granted immunity. Contractors who committed crimes in Iraq are free from prosecution. Compromise, timidity, and vacillation have too often been the marks of this young administration when we needed and wanted a leader to lead us forward, working for a clear vision.

What does all of this tell us? Government doesn't work. The Republicans have won the argument. The Dems lost in Massachusetts because they have allowed the Republcans to write the script. The Republicans say "no," and the Democrats say "please," when they should be saying "fine, then we'll move forward without you." When Obama still had public opinion and momentum, he should have gone to the blue dog Dems and warned them, "You were elected on a platform of change. Tow the line or you will lose the party support and come your next election, I will personally campaign against you." Of course it is too late for that now.

So, what should the Dems do? First off, they need to stick to their guns. Learn from the Republicans and don't give in a bit. Work for the best bills and don't compromise. Feldman's advice is good. Write a jobs bill with serious meat to it and push it through without compromise. If the Republicans fight it. Use that against them. If blue dog Dems don't support it, use that against them. The time is passed when Obama needs to take off the gloves. Hopefully, it is better late than never. If it isn't then we have lost the best opportunity for substantive change in decades.

Most of us have heard about Steve Anderson - the pastor in Phoenix who has been praying that Obama would die and go to hell. For the most part, people have written him off as being a crazy who is completely on his own at the lunatic fringe. Unfortunately, he is not alone at the fringe. He represents a growing movement. There was a t shirt and bumper stickers being sold on the web with the slogan, "Pray for Obama Psalm 109:8. Sounds innocent enough. Even the verse itself falls pretty squarely in the American tradition of political discourse - "Let his days be few; and let another take his office" (KJV) It becomes much more sinister when the following verse is read - "Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow."

Nobody who purchased that t shirt or bumper sticker did so without reading the verse in its context. Nobody who wore it did so without knowing that they were calling for the death of the president of the United States. Ronald Kessler, who wrote a book about presidential security says that death threats against Obama are up 400% over George Bush. It is no wonder... people are hearing "death to the president of the US" from pulpits... and not only from radical Muslim imams in the Middle East, they are hearing it from "Christian" fundamentalist pastors in the US.

Let me say this as clearly as I can. This slogan is not funny or cute. It is heinous. These people are not "biblical" or "Christian." They are using proof texts to back up political ideologies and trying to bolster their cases by attributing their views to God. And finally, any Christian who does not condemn these misuses of the Bible and of Christian theology is culpable for anything that may happen.

talk radio

When I'm in the car I usually listen to either NPR or to talk radio. We have an Air America affiliate here but neither their coverage nor NPR's reaches all of my roaming area so sometimes I find myself listening to Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or another talker of that stripe.

I understand that they need to keep an audience and that means pushing things a bit, but... but... but...

I have to say that I am more than a little miffed when they say they hope Obama fails. Now I am no fan of the W. I think and thought the first election was stolen and possibly the second one too. I think he was a disaster as a president. But I never once wished he would fail. I fully expected he would, but I never hoped for it. Why? Because his leadership impacted the entire world. If he failed. We failed. Jobs were lost. Unnecessary wars were fought. People died. I didn't want him to fail.

Now, of course, had he succeeded, it would have been very difficult for the dems to get power and for a dem to get elected as president, but that was a price I was willing to pay if it would have made the world more stable and people's lives fuller.

No, when they hope for Obama to fail, they are hoping for people to lose their homes and their jobs. They are hoping for my neighbors to lose their healthcare and to have to make choices between medicine and food. They are hoping for the world to erupt in violence and for innocent children to die as collateral damage. They are being absolutely unpatriotic. They are sinning against all of humanity.

The second piece that I've been hearing makes me laugh. I can't tell you how many times I've heard these apologists for the Bush administration attack Obama and say, as good Republicans, they are for fiscal restraint and a balanced budget. Did they sleep through the last 8 years? Did they forget that Bush came into office with a surplus (left to him by a Democrat) and left with the largest deficit ever? Or did they forget that in large degree the last administration, a Republican administration, virtually did exactly what it wanted to do for 8 years and in doing so, put our economy in the toilet, decimated our military, shredded the constitution, and destroyed our standing in the world? Or maybe they just think their audience is so stupid that they have forgotten who got us into the current mess.

Now they also spend a lot of time talking up the Bush administration's legacy. They remind us that during the final 7 years of Bush's administration no terrorist attacks took place on US soil. That is true. But no aliens from outer space attacked us either. Is either one due to the diligence of the Bushies? Got me, but given the way they ran the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, the economy at home, and took care of the constitution, I have my doubts they were responsible for fending off either attack. At the same time, we do know who was president when 9/11 happened and we do know that reports were ignored that gave warnings about Osama Bin Laden. They seem to forget that as well.

Well, I guess they do succeed in accomplishing their primary objective though. I get upset. And I listen some more.

President Obama

When I was a boy there was a song - "Only in America, a poor boy like me can grow up to be president." It fed the dreams of some of my friends. We knew we could do anything and become anything. The future was completely open to us. Others knew that it didn't apply to them, they are black. Others knew it didn't apply to them, they are female. This presidential campaign made the possibility of that song apply to all of us... a black man as candidate for president and a woman for vp on the other ticket. In either case, it would have been an historical election. The promise of our nation is there for all Americans.

Now, Obama was not my first choice among the Democrats but he was my choice over McCain. As his campaign moved along I came to see that he was the best choice. He ran a superb campaign that at least hints at the way he will run the nation. He is not a messiah and he will face some very difficult times. Still, I believe that he is uniquely capable to lead the United States through these difficult days and I believe that he is uniquely positioned to restore the stature of the United States in the world. I have hope for the first time in 8 years.

President Obama! That sounds good to me!

candidates on the economy

both candidates have responded to the economic mess with ads.

First Obama's



now McCain's



Here is a reader's response to both ads from Andrew Sullivan's blog.

Let me get this straight ... Obama's ad is two minutes in which he outlines, in broad strokes, his economic plan and points us to a site where we can read the plan in full. McCain's ad is 30 seconds of tough rhetoric without a word that says what he would do except "reform Wall Street" because he's "taken on tougher guys than this before".

And it's Obama's plan that's all talk?

Seems like Andrew's reader got it right. McCain is just macho posturing while at least Obama is giving broad strokes of what he would propose we do.

Obama ads

This is the way that politics should be done...



Now I know the criticism is that this is all well and good but how? And that isn't a bad criticism. Still, just raising real issues and positive dreams is so much better than character attacks.

Obama wins Texas

this in from MSNBC

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
NBC News has allocated the remaining nine Texas caucus delegates, 7-2, in favor of Obama. That means the Illinois senator has won the most delegates, 99-94, as a result of both the Texas primary and caucuses.

Obama now leads by 129 in the overall delegate count, 1637-1508. Obama leads by 162 pledged delegates, 1415-1253. (There remains just one delegate unallocated from Democrats Abroad.) Clinton leads among superdelegates, 255-222, per the NBC News Political Unit count.

Also note, the Obama campaign has passed around that it has picked up two delegates in Mississippi, showing Obama with a 20-13 lead. NBC News' count remains 19-14 for Obama so far

Race in America

"My name is Roy. I'm a white, middle-aged, middle class, well-educated, male."

"Hi Roy!"

For years, I've had the fantasy of beginning a sermon on MLK Day that way. But having said all of that, I need to say some more. I grew up in what was then a blue collar, integrated neighborhood in Pittsburgh (Wilkinsburg) and experienced the racial tensions that were so prevalent during the 60's. We joked that we got off school 5 days every May for the annual riot season. I saw as the police waded into the violent confrontations between the black and white kids and essentially took the side of the white kids. I watched as my white friends went off to college and my black friends ended up in menial jobs or jail unless they were good enough athletes to get into a college on a scholarship. One friend from my high school got a basketball scholarship to the same rural white college I attended. He never graduated.

I could give hundreds of illustrations, some from my past and some as recent as a few weeks ago in beautiful Santa Barbara, all of which point to one inescapable truth - that the black experience in America is not the same as the white one. Unless we acknowledge this and work together to address it, it will continue to poison our common life.

Yesterday, I was driving a distance to a meeting and was listening to right wing talk radio as I drove. I came home and read a number of comments from folk on the right regarding Obama's speech on Race and I am struck by the inability to see what strikes me as obvious. Race still is an issue in the United States and Obama provides us with an opportunity to address this issue in ways that we have not. Again and again I heard or read comments that denigrated or even denied the black experience and in doing so, removed any possibility of movement forward. More and more I find myself motivated to become involved in this campaign.

Olbermann on Ferraro

We've all heard the comments by Geraldine Ferraro that Obama would not be where he is where he not black...

Keith Olbermann has a hard hitting commentary on this incident.




my next post will give another perspective on Ferraro's comments.

The Fall of the Soviet Union and Iraq

What do these two subjects have to do with one another? Let's first talk briefly about the Soviet Union. It fell not because of the strength of America but because of the weakness of its own economy which was overburdened by a military budget that bled everything else dry. Military spending is not productive spending. It doesn't provide infrastructure or goods to the public. Instead it is just a little better than throwing the money away. It is the epitome of the disposable product. So all of this wasteful spending as they tried to keep up with us in an arms race while sustaining a war in Afghanistan was more than they could afford. When their economy collapsed, as was inevitable because of the percentage of non-productive sending, the nation crumbled.

Last Thursday Joseph Stigletz, a Nobel Prize winning economist, and Robert Hormatz, vice chairman of Goldman-Sachs International, testified before the Joint Economic Committee of congress. Stigletz said that he believes the overall cost of the Iraq war will be around 3 trillion dollars with the direct cost to US taxpayers being at least $2 trillion.

Both men testified about the opportunities to make this country better that are rendered impossible because of this war. Stigletz said that for a fraction of the cost, Social Security and Medicare could have been kept easily solvent for at least 50 more years. Each day's spending could put 58,000 children in Head Start, make college affordable for 160,000 students, pay the annual salaries of 11,000 border patrol agents or 14,000 police officers. And that is one day's costs. Watch this little film from the American Friends Service Committee to see more of what could be done with just 1 day's expenditure for this war.

Stigletz also noted that 40% of the vets from the first Gulf War are eligible for disability benefits which will go on for decades. Imagine, he asked, what the numbers will be for this war which will involve 2 million troops and go on for at least the 5 years we already have under our belt? Imagine with me the social costs when the safety net for them fails as it did for the Viet Nam vets - remember how many of them ended up homeless on the streets? How many of these young men and women will end up discarded? And what will happen to their families?

And finally they testified that because of tax cuts during war and what was an already growing deficit, this war is financed almost entirely by deficit spending. Bush has worked to try to hide the costs of the war by bypassing the normal budget process and using emergency appropriations for the funds. The costs will be hanging around our necks like an albatross for decades to come.

And John McCain says we should expect to stay there another 100 year!

Let me make a prediction. If we do, we will fall just like the Soviet Union did and for essentially the same reasons. It will have nothing to do with the strength of our ideals or the beautiful vision upon which this nation was founded. It will be because of a poorly planned and completely unnecessary war that strangled our economy.

A vote for McCain will virtually insure that end. Actually, I think a vote for Hillary will too. It is only Obama who is talking about seeing security in a new way - of building coalitions and negotiating before dropping bombs.

vacation and more

We're on Vacation now in south central New Mexico in a little town called Las Cruces at the foot of the Organ Mountains in the photo. The ads say that there are 350 sunny days a year here. A menu at a local restaurant said "Annual Rainfall? Yeah right..." Well of the 4 days we have been here, we've had three with rain including last evening that looked like a light show with over 300 lightning strikes in the area. Other than that, it has been a restful trip. It is beautiful as only the desert can be and the chilis are HOT!

One of our issues was to look for some proerty to purchase. Things are booming here with an incredible number of housing starts at what seem to our California sensibilities as extremely reasonable prices. We saw a number of houses we'd love to live in. Too bad they are not in Santa Barbara at these prices. We're not clear wheter purchasing here makes sense but it is something to think about.

Being on vacation has kept me from any comments on the Democratic debate. I did hear some of the snipes against Obama for not being forceful enough and the descriptions of Gravel being too far to the left when he said that the military folk who have died in Iraq have died in vain and that the only thing worse than having one soldier die in vain was to have another do so. All I can say is that Gravel was right.