Last week, the Senate narrowly defeated an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would have criminalized desecration of the American flag.

Dictionary.com defines desecration as “blasphemous behavior; the act of depriving something of its sacred character.” This definition, which one must assume the amendment text was using absent any other definition, is one most usually reserved for religious items, something which the flag clearly is not and can not be according to most religious and constitutional beliefs. That point, however, is merely an aside.

What really made me do a double take was the fact that there was also a bill on the floor to criminalize acts such as burning a flag that would not have the gravitas of a Constitutional amendment, but rather the lesser import as a statute. Different import, but with the same chilling result- a stamp on the rights of free expression.

Then I found out how the senators in my state, California voted on these twin bills and that sent me into the rabbit hole. As most people may be aware, California is represented in the Senate by two Democrats, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. Following the defeat of the constitutional amendment (SJ Res 12), local radio talk stations were handing credit ( or variously disdain depending on the lean of the station) to Boxer for having staved off the Constitutional change. Despite the fact that 33 other senators voted against the amendment, Boxer seemed to have no problem taking credit for its defeat. And for a few days, I felt pretty good about her vote and her stance. Similarly, Feinstein was one of the 66 who voted in favor of the Constitutional amendment, and I was ashamed at her abbrogation of duty to uphold the Constitution. Both of these women proclaim to value the concept of free speech and the first amendment, but in a clear case of restricting such freedoms, Feinstein clearly fell short of her own presumed intentions. Or did she?

Once the Constitutional amendment failed, the second flag desecration statute (S.Amdt. 4543 to S.J.Res. 12 ) came up for a vote, and the lovely ladies from California did a complete flip-flop of their previous positions. While voting against a Constitutional amendment, Boxer voted in favor of the statute. Seemingly, Boxer thinks enough of free speech to keep the Bill of Rights intact, but not so much of them that she minds having people arrested for flag burning. And Feinstein, who voted to restrict free speech vis-a-vis a Constitutional amendment, voted no on the lesser statute that basically would result in the same restrictions as the amendment.

Recap: Constitutional Amendment to prohibit flag desecration: Feinstein-Yes, Boxer- No
Federal Statute to criminalize and punish flag desecration: Feinstein- No, Boxer-Yes.

Can anyone explain the lack of consistency here? Can anyone explain the seeming disconnect between these senator’s votes on nearly identical bills? Because I sure as hell can’t.

What this does leave is an even deeper bad taste in my mouth for the state of political leadership in this country, especially in the Democrats, who I have little choice but to tie my hopes to for a reversal in what I see as a dramatic redefining of America and her democracy. But if this is where I’m pinning my hopes, I might as well keep believing that every time I buy a lottery ticket I really might win the big one.

To me, it is obvious that the juxtaposition of these votes have little to do with integrity or a deep feeling of preservation of free speech and everything to do with political maneuvering. And that is the last thing I want from politicians anymore. The time for empty action has passed, and I can sadly say that if I eventually find myself voting for either of these so-called leaders, it will be with the all too familiar hand plugging my nose.

Republicans like to deride the Democrats as without conviction on anything. With these kind of stances (and votes) it becomes harder to refute those kinds of charges. Still, given the choice between institutionalized corruption and goose-stepping with the administration, I’ll side with the party of opposition. It’s just a shame that said opposition is becoming more and more an ‘in name only’ label and not one worth rejoicing and standing tall with.

I suppose the only consolation I have in all of this is that both measures failed to pass. A small victory for freedom, and one clearly not done for freedoms sake.

Where, o’ where is that third party of real public servants that this country so desperately needs?

(Note: This article ended up being rather lengthy, more so than I anticipated. Expect a good five minutes to get through this one. – KG)

Progressives like me make a point of hammering the Bush administration for every misstep it takes. And to be fair, they make it pretty easy for us, what with banner moments like the Medicare prescription plan, the Katrina response, and the Heckuva Job in Iraq®. But how often do we get the chance to remark when they do something with such acumen that it makes David Copperfield blush? It is with this in mind that I offer congratulations to the Bush administration, and more specifically to the president himself, for succeeding where no other president has succeeded before. For in the short span of just 5 years, George Bush has managed to reverse the course of American history by expanding governmental power to its largest size ever while shrinking the protections of the Bill of Rights. Never has this feat been attempted, let alone achieved. Golf clap, please, for the president. He may be the most cunning man alive. Or at least the most agreeable puppet.

Oh, I know what you in the far right ‘majority’ are saying right now. (Yes, all 37% of you.) “What are you talking about? No one has taken my rights away.” This, it seems, is the most common retort from the right when a discussion of the Incredible Shrinking Bill of Rights takes place between the left and the right. (Second place is “I don’t have anything to hide anyway. What do I care?”) Remember, the loss of rights is incremental and often unnoticed. Kind of like a roll of toilet paper, in that you never notice it getting smaller. But when you’re staring a an empty cardboard tube with your pants around you ankle, you understand that you’re in a bit of a bind. So, to fully appreciate the significance of this impressive accomplishment, I offer this brief analysis.

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

Under Attack: Taken piece by piece; true, no national religion has yet been established, but there is a remarkable concentration of Christian Evangelicism amongst the upper ranks of government, including a president who operates on direct orders from God; and true that all religions can pretty much practice freely in America. But do expect some derision if your religion is Islam or anything else that sounds like lunch meat; we still retain our freedom to speak too, but if we do say anything against the president or his brilliant ideas, we are of course, traitors; a free press is now a myth, having been seen as such a good bargain (being free after all) that all of the news outlets have been homogenized into about a handful of really rich info barons, who of course return the favor of a deregulated media by teaching all their reporters the time honored ‘copy, paste’ technique of information dissemination; the freedom to assemble is spotty too, unless you are willing to sign a loyalty note or hold your rally in upper Montana in the winter. You can gather all you want, but we’re watching you and we’ll be moving you out soon. And of course that pesky petition the government deal is simply ridiculous. Petition all you want, but all their stuff is top secret, and the laws don’t apply to them anyhow.

Analysis: While nearly 4 in ten Americans think the 1st Amendment ‘goes too far’, the First Amendment is still technically intact, but a mere shell of it’s original self, weak and mostly for show.

Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Under Attack: Actually, this one seems to be fine under Bush. In fact, the Vice President showed us all last year how vital it is to have firearms handy, especially when lawyers are hanging around.

Analysis: Although used as a whipping post against the Democrats, this amendment is considered strong and safe. Besides, if the president really wanted to disarm the nation, he could always unleash the bird flu on us.

Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Under Attack: Actually, this one seems to be fine under Bush too. Probably because all the soldiers are off dying in the deserts of the Middle East. But hey…NIMBY goes for the troops too, n’est pa?

Analysis: Full 3rd Amendment rights intact (Damn…am I disproving my own thesis here? So far we still have 2 of 3 rights pretty much okay, with the third at least still a nice window dressing. Hmmmm, better continue cautiously.)

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

Under Attack: Phew! I knew this was going to get easier! With the passing, or should I say, browbeating through, of the Patriot Act, government can now conduct ‘sneak and peak’ searches without a warrant, without ever telling the person about it. A person can be arrested based only on suspicion, their homes, personal belongings, and written communications can be perused at will, as long as we cite the War on Terror. On his word, the president can declare you to be a enemy of the state and no court can take it back. Plus, we’ve got the NSA too, so nothing you do is really unknown to the government. Hell, who needs a warrant when you’ve got secret technology and 300 million people to use it on? Now that’s some serious deciding power indeed!

Analysis: What Fourth Amendment?

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Under Attack: Okay, now we are rolling. This president really knows how to pick up speed! The previously mentioned ‘enemy combatant’ status makes obsolete the necessity to actually charge someone with a crime because we are in a perpetual state of public danger now. 9-11 remember? You are either a republican or you are with the enemy. If you are with the enemy (i.e .not republican), you can be labeled a traitor many times over, so don’t talk to me about double jeopardy. We can still not compel you to testify against yourself, but we’ve picked up some pretty clever interrogation tactics that seem to make people cry out what we want need to hear. Due process of law? A little Bush speak and presto- We’ll process you when we do.
Not sit down and shut up. As for private property rights? Give me a K. Give me an E. Give me an L. Give me an O. What’s that spell? Screw you and your property rights too! That’s right. An ‘ultra-conservative’ has presided over the disappearance of personal property rights, one of the keystones of the capitalistic society.

Analysis: (Taps playing in the background.)

Half time update: Bill of Rights Intact: 2
Bill of Rights Demolished: 2
Bill of Rights On Life Support: 1

Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Under Attack: Speedy Trial? Too passé. Today’s ultra chic justice leaders prefer no trial at all. No specific charges, provided you seem unusual or are turned in for ransom money by an angry neighbor. In fact, the president has managed to get authority to withhold any formal charges indefinitely, until he can think of something good to use, I guess. If your accuser is the government, you can’t confront them either, because both the means and the information they have is top secret. Even to you, the accused. Especially to you, the accused. We’ll still get you a lawyer, but it may take a few years to actually meet with them. Not to worry, you’re not going anywhere anyhow. After all, if you’ve gotten to the point where we decided to imprison you in this way, you probably are a traitor anyhow.

Analysis: While the disintegration of the 6th Amendment is occurring slowly and is currently targeted primarily at certain populations, the precedent has been set to apply the new definitions anytime and against anyone. Goodbye Number 6. See you on the other side.

Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Under Attack: Continued tort reform laws have virtually insulated corporations from civil liability in all but the most egregious cases. And when was the last time anybody sued for only twenty bucks? We don’t have time for that kind of crap. Isn’t that what we have The People’s Court for? Fortunately the president knows when to use his eraser.

Analysis: Basically, this one is now worthless, but in fairness, the president has failed to alter this amendment in any meaningful way, primarily because it has been voided by the courts and congress first.

Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Under Attack: Not included in the definition of cruel or unusual is torture interrogation. Provided you don’t actually die, that is. Also, by increasing the War on Drugs®, we are now able to incarcerate more pot smokers, especially those fakers who are trying to pass it off as medicine. No amount of imprisonment could ever be considered excessive for these folks. After all, buying pot funds terror, remember?

Analysis: Excessive , schmexcessive. The Decider will decide what needs to be decided here.

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Under Attack: Yeah, right. Like the people can be trusted to know what rights they need to have. Bush has boldly challenged this very flimsily worded amendment by promoting several constitutional amendments so that regular people will know that they should legitimize hate against homosexuals by denying them equality and physically restrain people from burning an American flag. But why stop at rights? This president really knows how to gut a principal. What with mandatory education programs, national ID programs, and a keen sense of whether dead people are really dead or just really, really out of it, but able to come back at any time, there are no rights, either enumerated or not that that president can’t modify with a properly placed signing statement.

Analysis: You only have the rights we want you to think you have.

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Under Attack: See previous argument.

Analysis: See previous analysis.

Final Tally: Bill of Rights Intact: 2 (2nd and 3rd)
Bill of Rights Demolished: 7 (4th through 10th)
Bill of Rights On Life Support: 1 (1st)

So there you have it. The Incredible Shrinking Bill of Rights, courtesy of the Bush Administration. Next time I complain about the loss of America, you’ll know what I mean. In the meantime, how about a hearty round of applause for the president. His hand lies heavily over much of the destruction, and the rest occurred on his watch. Hey, he wants the credit for all the good things, right? It’s only fair then, that I give him credit for this, the downfall of the Bill of Rights, and the darkening of America.

(originally posted at Bring It On )

So said the president of Shell Oil Company to Tim Russert, host of NBC’s Meet The Press on Sunday, June 18th, 2006.

Russert had the heads of three of the four largest oil companies (Shell, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips) in for a chat about high prices, consumer angst, and alternative fuels. When asked by Russert whether the oil companies and the White House were engaged in talks to wean America of its “addiction to oil,” John Hofmeister, head of Shell Oil replied,

“I think energy independence is the wrong direction because the United States is not an island nation. We are interdependent on all of our global companies doing business all over the world, and I think the oil companies need to be more interdependent as well. I think it’s good for international relations. I think it’s good for the economy, actually, to have oil come from wherever it can come from. Now we can do a lot more in this country. The 102 billion barrels of known oil reserves and gas reserves that we don’t have access to in this country on federal land and the outer continental shelf…we’d like to go produce that and we know how to produce that and I think we know how to protect the natural environment in sound ways.”

What? Energy independence is NOT the course to take? And here I thought that’s what the president meant when he said we needed to cure our addiction to oil. Gosh, did I miss something?

Looking a little closer at the actual words gives me even more reason to pause. What Mr. Hofmeister is really saying is that it is large, multi-national corporations who run the show and that not only should the oil companies work together to consolidate a hold on world fossil fuels, but they should have carte blanche to get fossil fuels wherever they may be found. Sounds like someone has a Napolean complex to me.

This monologue from Hofmeister came near the end of the segment, but there was plenty more good stuff before this show capper.

When asked about the future of energy, including the importance of renewable and alternative energy, all three CEO’s asserted that regardless of the public desire for alternative, renewable fuel sources, we were going to be tied to fossil fuels for at least 30 and upwards of 100 years. Each man danced around the possibility of non-oil energy while insisting increased efforts to increase supply of fossil fuels- from various forms of oil (sand, shale, conventional), gas (including LNG), and coal- were of primary importance at this time.

All three oil barons put up the standard defense vis-à-vis profit margins. Every oil company has experienced record breaking profit margins in the last year and change. Russert wondered why they couldn’t cut prices and earn only a 30% profit instead of 50% or 60%? Why were retiring CEO’s handed $400 million retirement packages? Didn’t they care about the public perception, which shows a 71% negative approval for oil companies? Investment in oil prodiction, offsetting losses in other divisions, and even some research into future energy sources. But none conceded that profits were obscene. No one suggested that consumers will ever get a break.

In the end, what probably shocked me most was the smugness of these men, especially Hofmeister. They spoke of the consumers and the hurricane victims and the hard time high prices are causing, and kept using the term ‘we.” And it occurred to me that the ‘we’ they are speaking of is not the American people. These men try to act like they are just another great American company, but it isn’t true. These companies are multi-national octopuses with tentacles spread across the globe. They don’t care about any one country at all. They care about the money, and the power that comes from controlling the people who control the oil.

It is clear now that if America is ever going to find a solution to our energy woes, woes that compound our foreign policy aims and national viability into the future, it will have to be done in good old-fashioned American tradition. It will be up to the independent thinkers and engineers and financiers who understand the importance of energy independence. It will be up to individual consumers and forward thinking businesses. In short, it is up to us.

The oil companies don’t want us to think of energy independence because that means they lose their money and their power. They lose their ability to manipulate international politics and internal politicians. They lose their strangle hold on the economy and transportation, and everything that makes our modern world modern. Because once we have energy independence, we can really begin to stretch our wings towards freedom, prosperity, and a more peaceful existence.

To be fair, all three executives agreed that we need to take a serious look out our energy demand issues, but their answer isn’t to conserve so much as it is to increase supply. And not just any old supply, but more fossil fuels. (Damn, I was trying to show something positive.)

You can watch the entire show here. This segment is the last of the show, starting around 35 minutes or so.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Imagine you’re enjoying a nice evening at home after a long day at work when the unthinkable happens…you start feeling a pain in your chest that quickly spreads into your arms. You become lightheaded, nauseous, and pale. You feel as if your heart is racing a hundred miles an hour. You are having a heart attack. Your spouse rushes to the phone, dials 911, and an ambulance is at your door in three minutes flat, loading you into the back on a stretcher and speeds off to your local hospital, a mere four miles away. The EMT’s rush you up the ER ramp into the receiving room only to be told by the staff that they have to go somewhere else, the next hospital available is 15 miles down the road. They load you back in, hit the sirens and go speeding off into the night. But it’s too late. When they get there, you’re already dead.

Sound impossible? Hardly. According to an investigation by the Institute of Medicine, such a scenario happens about once every minute in the U.S., and while not every case ends up with a dead patient in the back of an ambulance, the statistics are a sobering wake-up call concerning the state of our hospitals, health care, and ability to react to disaster situations.

This is just another piece in the mounting pile of evidence that America’s health care system is not the finest in the world, at least not in terms of accessibility or preparedness. The report makes some fine recommendations, but unless lawmakers hear from the citizenry, the issue of national health care is going to keep getting pushed to the back burner.

What matters more to your life? Burning flags or closed hospital doors? Same sex marriage or dying in the back of an ambulance? To me it’s an easy choice. Time to put some pressure of politicians to work on something that really matters to all of us, our quality of life, and yes, our national security.

(originally posted at Bring It On! )

At least, that’s the message many in the storm ravaged communities along the Gulf Coast are getting from their insurance companies as they attempt to rebuild their homes and their lives after last years devastating Hurricane Katrina reduced their hopes and dreams to so much clutter.

This AP article, which is appearing in many newspapers across the nation today, shows how thousands of storm victims are being systematically screwed out of money they were led to believe would be paid out in case of damage to their homes. If ever there were a reason for government regulation of an industry, the insurance giants are giving us one. Unfortunately, there actually is quite a bit of regulation regarding insurance, but most of it favors the insurers instead of the insured.

The owners of the sagging, flood-stained home aren’t in. Above the front door, a banner explains their absence, and the lack of progress: “Allstate paid $10,113.34 on this house for storm damage.”

“I want people to drive by my home and decide for themselves: Could I repair this for $10,000?” asks Eric Moskau, the home’s exiled owner who had over $1.2 million in coverage on his 3,000-square-foot home.

Did you catch that? He had insurance in excess of $1.2 million. Clearly, any sane homeowner would think that they had taken adequate precaution against home damage. Apparently though, that isn’t the case.

The biggest slap in the face though isn’t just how these folks are being left high and dry now that the waters have receded, but in how they really had no choice but to buy into a system that works hard to avoid any obligations it has to its customers.

Insurance is mandated by law or lenders, or sometimes both. Insurance is something you don’t really have an option to buy or not buy, unless you pay for your home or car outright and in cash. You want a loan for a house, get insurance. You want to drive a car, get insurance. In theory, when mishaps occur, or worse, the insurance is there to help you pick up the pieces. You know…like a good neighbor and all that.

Not so, it seems.

Insurance modeling firm ISO estimates Louisiana had $24.3 billion in insured losses, but the state department of insurance says only $12.5 billion had been paid out as of the end of April.

And while insurance companies play semantic games when writing their policies or paying out on policies, politicians are finding ways to blame homeowners for not being prepared, saying in part that people weren’t taking advantage of flood insurance offered by the government. But this is just not true.

According to the article, in New Orleans, 2 out of 3 homes carried federal flood insurance up to the maximum amount of $250,000. But when the fed policy was paid out, often the money was paid to the bank and applied to the mortgage, a practice that is illegal except in cases where rebuilding efforts have been prohibited. By law, banks have to put that money into an escrow account to be used for repairs.

Of course, we all know that the insurance and banking/lending companies have plenty of money to burn on political contributions. It seems their little insurance policies (paid for politicians) work a whole lot better than the ones they offer their customers.

Oh, and for those who want to defend the insurance companies with claims of how they have such a tough time with all the pay-outs they do make, keep this in mind. In 2005, the insurance industry cleared $43 Billion in profits, despite the damage caused by the hurricane season. That’s up 11.7% over 2004 and is a 15 year high, according to the Insurance Information Institute.

The insurance industry is a government mandated and protected racket, not much better than the organized ‘protection’ racket. Shouldn’t we be demanding a RICO investigation on all these companies? I’ve written about this before, but the evidence makes me even more sure that something needs to change.

As we come in to the new hurricane storm season, homeowners in vulnerable areas should beware…should another Katrina hit your home area, pack fast and find a new community. You’ll never recoup your losses if the big one hits.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Dysfunctional Democracy

California’s 50th District primary election is being touted as a victory by both the Republican Party (their candidate won) and the Democratic Party (their candidate didn’t lose by as much as usual), but the truth is that this election was nothing less than a loss for all things democratic. Why would I say this?

Here are the facts: less than 50% of eligible citizens in the district are registered to vote. Of those who are registered, only 33% turned out to cast a ballot. That represents a whopping 16.5% of eligible citizens who voted in this race. Sixteen and a frigging half per cent! How can this possibly be called “the will of the people” when half of the people who could vote didn’t even bother to register? And of those who did, only a third even bothered? This is hardly what a healthy democracy looks like.

This is why any claims of mandates are ridiculous. This is why any claims of majority rule are laughable. Hell, at this rate, the vast majority are saying they want nothing to do with what our political system has become. Clearly, the parties have succeeded if their goal has been to reduce voters to the slimmest segments of society.

It is obvious to me that a society that does not invoke their rights of self-determination by the simple act of showing up to cast a vote, or better yet, by voting absentee (which creates no hardship on anyone who wants to vote) deserves the corrupted, cynical government they have. For the few of us who actually care and want to exercise our voices, this is grim indeed.

What About the Canadian Border?

News of a foiled terrorist cell in Canada this week begs the question, “What are we doing to secure the northern border?” Well, aside from the stalled RealID bill in Congress, the answer is, “about as much as we’ve done to secure the southern border.”

While this coup for Canadian law enforcement is a victory for all of us, the responses from the White House is less than encouraging.

“We’re vulnerable at all our points of entry,” said Frances Townsend, homeland security adviser to President George W. Bush.

Gee, thanks Frances, for stating the obvious. And while this break-up in Canada means one less band of lunies are running around, stockpiling fertilizer to make bombs, the presence of this Canadian terror cell is likely to fuel the fire under Team Bush and their never-ending campaign of fearmongering. “See, they’re right next door, waiting to strike us again. This is why we need to continue to tap all of your communications, secretly break into your homes, and indefinitely incarcerate people we don’t like.”

Clearly America must protect our borders and ports of entry. But far greater progress can be made in the “War on Terror” by stopping policies that fuel hatred and by unshackling ourselves from the need for foreign oil.

We all know that danger is lurks in the shadows. But the right response is not to clamp down on civil liberties in free nations. The right response lies in ending the double standards in our foreign policies. The right response lies in ending a doctrine of pre-emptive warfare against third world countries. The right response is to marginalize these lunatics through the proliferation of good deeds, real friendship, and honest dialogue with the average citizens in the Muslim world.

China’s Growing Deserts

And they say that man has no major effects on nature. Tell that to China. Environmental experts in that country are searching for ways to halt the expansion of two major desert regions in its northern districts, deserts whose expansion of 1500 square miles a year (about the size of Rhode Island) is threatening villages and towns as it makes its way closer to the Chinese capitol of Beijing.

While China has always had desert regions within its borders, the current expansion can be tied to the 1950’s and the Maoist government’s Great Leap Forward program that attempted to increase the amount of arable land by diverting rivers in the region and forming reservoirs. Also included in the program was the intentional deforestation and over cultivation of lands in that area.

Now with over one billion people, it is easy to understand why China needed to increase food production, but the solution, while briefly successful, has now created a situation where food production is being hampered and all efforts to stave the growing sand dunes have proved ineffective. Sometimes, you can’t turn back the clock no matter how hard you try.

“We must find ways to live with nature in some kind of balance,” said Chai Erhong, an environmentalist and writer who lives in Minqin. “The government mainly wants to control nature, which is what did all the harm in the first place.”

Indeed. Every time man tries to harness nature to serve his needs, the results tend to create an opposite result. Maybe not immediately, but certainly eventually. And when man seeks to reverse the effects of his meddling, we find that you can’t always put the puzzle back together like it was before.

Wang Tao, who heads the 937 Project, said the only viable strategy to save arid land in Gansu, Inner Mongolia and Ningxia is to move people out, reduce production, form conservation parks and let nature heal itself.

“Minqin is not going to get more water,” he said in a telephone interview from his base in Lanzhou. “It needs fewer people.”

Easier said than done I’m afraid. Even with China’s one child policy, their population is still growing. As China, which has one of the world largest populations, moves to become more modernized, we feel the squeeze in oil availability. Will we soon be feeling the squeeze on water availability too? Or will China seek to expand their own borders in order to find the resources it needs to assure a minimum supply of water and land for its people? I’ve said before that our economic imbalance with China is going to cause us problems at some point. I still believe that is the case. But perhaps China’s water problems, and loss of livable land, will become a bigger problem, one that will create instability to all of Asia as their need for land and water increases. What then?

Sometimes, in our collective efforts to expose all that is wrong with the world, our country, and our government in particular, we lose sight of all that is right. This past weekend, I was reminded in many subtle and some not so subtle ways that despite the problems facing us globally, beyond the morass of political corruption and corporate malfeasance, and outside of the partisanship that politics injects into our lives, America is a damn good place to live. But it’s not the bureaucrats or politicians or industry leaders or religious figureheads who make this a great country. Simply put, it is us- you and me and the millions of other people walking the streets every day who make our country great. It is the commitment to a shared sense of liberty and freedom and joie de vivre in spite of all the madness around us that makes America a beacon of hope for millions who seek to come here, and a reflection of success for those of us lucky enough to have been born here.

What is it that reminded me of that which I instinctually knew all along? Believe it or not, it was baseball. I’m not what you could call a sports fan. Although I’ve always enjoyed participating in various sports related activities, I’ve never been one to follow the fortunes or failures of any particular team or sport. So it is a rare occasion for me to actually go to see a professional sporting event in person. But as the father of a seven year old who is becoming interested in the game of baseball, when I was offered free tickets to see our home town team in action, I knew this would be a fun way to spend some time together. It turns out that I got more than I bargained for, because along with the fabulous day with my daughter, I was reminded that life is more than just political wrangling, bill paying, and nine-to-five toil. Life, like a baseball game, is an ongoing series of events. Some of those events work in your favor, some of them don’t.

Strike One: I decided to make the day more of an adventure by taking the train into town instead of driving to the stadium. Several factors contributed to this decision- the fact that I make that hour-long drive twice daily, the price of gas and parking, and the numerous times we’d talked of taking the train “one of these days” all played into it. But mostly it was because I wanted to do something different. And my daughter was clearly excited by this choice of transportation. We’d never taken the train before though, and upon arrival at the depot, found that purchasing our tickets was not a simple matter. In this age of automation, Amtrak has installed ‘self-service’ ticket machines, but as with many things supposed to make life simpler, the ticket machines were so complex as to require transit employees to actually complete your transactions for you. The result is a longer line than necessary, breeding frustration among would-be patrons. In fact, the ineptitude of this system resulted in nearly 40 people still waiting to purchase their tickets when the train arrived. Scrambling to get people through the line as fast as possible wasn’t working and it seemed that most of us would not make the train. As this train was a special added on the weekend specifically for people going to the baseball game, missing the train would also mean missing a big chunk of the game. But then a ray of hope- the transit employee/proxy ticket agent turned to everyone still in line and told us to get on the train and pay on the other end. It seemed that the human spirit trumped corporate inefficiency once again. Base hit, next batter.

Strike Two: Upon arrival at the train depot downtown, the plan was to hit the trolley for the rest of the trip to the stadium. We now had about 10 minutes until the beginning of the game, plenty of time it would seem, since the trolley ride would take but a few minutes. But surprise of surprises, the trolley ticket system was similar to that of the train, only more confusing because of the more numerous routes it took. Frustrated, I told my daughter we would just walk over from the train station and maybe miss the first few minutes of the game. To her, this was just another part of the adventure, making our way through downtown on foot, on the way to the big game. And though I knew the general location of the stadium, I didn’t realize we were at least 12 blocks away, as the crow flies that is. Finally, after navigating several busy streets we hopped into a bicycle cab for the rest of the trip. Our driver was a charming young man, recently immigrated from Bulgaria. As we rode the remaining 6 blocks to the stadium, I couldn’t help but be cheered up by his infectious smile and upbeat attitude as he told of how much he loved living here. Pop-fly double, next batter up.

The new stadium in town is big, and it was my first time there. Our tickets put us in the upper most level of the ballpark, and it was quite a hike to get there. As we made our way through, I was twice asked by stadium employees if I needed help finding the seats, and their directions always came with a smile. It took us about five minutes to get to our section, which turned out to be directly behind home plate, albeit up a few hundred feet. But we could see all the action clearly, and the fans around us ran the gamut of the American melting pot, from fathers and sons to groups of teenage girls to elderly couples. All colors, shapes, and sizes. All gathered together to enjoy America’s pastime. We watched as the teams battled it out on the field, and paid the high costs of ballpark hotdogs and French fries. The game was fun, but the crowd was better. As I sat there with my daughter, I watched the joy in her eyes, saw the smile on her face as the antics of the fans played out around us. She was having a great time, and as a consequence, so was I. The game ended with our team losing by one run, but clearly I’d hit a home run with my kid.

Strike Three: The trip back home was nearly identical to the one earlier that day. I paid another bicycle cab to get us back to the train depot, because the trolley situation was even more crowded and confused than before. Our driver this time was a Rastafarian looking musician (who played soul music with his band) who had nothing but a smile and laughter as we discussed music back to the train station. I tipped him half the fare price because he’d gotten us back just in time to make the train, which was getting ready to leave as we got there. Sadly, this time, the ticket attendant (the person, not the machine) couldn’t get people moving through quickly enough, and the train pulled out just as we began to get our tickets. The next train wouldn’t arrive for two hours, and though frustrated, we sat down to wait. And as we waited, we met and conversed with several people. A father and his two young sons, coming back from the ballgame. A single mother with her daughter and infant son coming home from a day at the zoo. A zoo employee heading home. An elderly couple going who knows where. All of us waiting for the train to return. All of us just happy to be.

We ended the day with a quick fast food dinner (it was after 8pm when we got home), and a goodnight hug. It was, all in all, a great day and one that I hope my daughter will remember for some time. For her, it was an adventure with dad, a train ride and a ball game. For me, it was a reminder that it is people who make life worth living.

Transferred into political terms, what I learned, or rather, what I was reminded of by this adventure with my daughter, is that for most people, politics are not the means to happiness. For most people, politics are so far removed from their daily lives as to be little more than a distraction at the water cooler. Most people don’t extrapolate the effects of political decisions to their daily lives. They just go on living as best they can. And in this country, despite all the corruption and waste and fraud and downright abuse of the law perpetrated by corporations and politicians and disingenuous figureheads, we’ve got it better than so many others in the world.

Those of us who dive head first into the political realm, whether through active participation or on-line punditry, must recognize this simple truth: politics is only one path to change. Connecting with people…enjoying time together…these are the things that make life worth living. And by connecting with each other, we often realize that we all seek the same things- a little security, a lot of freedom, and the chance to take our kids to a ballgame now and then.

In securing these things for ourselves and for each other, we make our world a better place. When we seek to share these ideals with others, we seek to make the world a little better too. And while eventually it is politics that make the conditions for happiness possible, it is up to each of us to make our little piece of the world a happy, hopeful, helpful place, not by finding things that divide us, but by enjoying the things that connect us.

So while I’ll continue to hammer away at the injustices of the world and the corruption in the halls of power, I’ll always try to remember the lessons I learned from a simple trip to a baseball game. It isn’t just politics that make the world go around.

(cross posted on Bring It On!)

There are few things I despise more than corrupt politicians who intentionally screw over their constituents for their own personal power or profit. One of those things is predatory lenders, like those drive through payday loan places. Although I am fortunate enough never to have had to go to one of those places, many Americans have, and increasingly, our military families are among those who slip into the noose of outrageous usury fees in order to get from one paycheck to the next.

In case you aren’t familiar with the practices of these ‘legitimate businesses’ let me fill you in on some of their favorite schemes, courtesy of this study from the University of Florida:

“Charges for payday loans vary, but a typical lender will charge around $17 or $18 for a two-week loan of $100. That’s roughly equivalent to an annual interest rate of 450 percent.”

and

“After collecting data from more than 13,000 ZIP codes across the country, the study’s authors found payday loan operations clustered in areas near military bases.”

And another from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

“Their business is geared toward confusing people and trapping them in this treadmill and squeezing every dollar that they can out of them,” said Robert Pregulman, executive director of WashPIRG, a consumer protection group in the state. “The whole premise behind the industry is to target a certain group of people and take advantage of them.”

Let’s look at some truths here: in our current era of unending pre-emptive war and the massive call-up of National Guard and military reservists to act as cannon fodder, the number of active military families is increasing. At the same time, Congress, filled with ‘we love the troops’ Republicans, have been cutting benefits for the troops while increasing their deployments. For many reservists and guardsmen, this amounts to leaving a civilian job for full time military service with lower pay. Lower pay coming in makes it harder for families to pay the bills. Creditors come calling, credit ratings plummet, and the option of getting regular credit terms evaporates. In comes the payday loan, with all of its associated pitfalls and trapdoors waiting for a financially unsavvy customer to come walking through the door.

Here’s the rub though. The UCMJ (those rules that govern military conduct) takes a dim view of soldiers who can’t repay their debts. Penalties include docked paychecks, loss of rank or security clearance, and possibly time in the brig. As more military members turn to quick loans to make it to the next payday, they become more vulnerable to these consequences, especially as fees and interest rates stack up. This loss of manpower can be the difference between having a ready force or having one half-staffed or under trained. And we’ve all seen the consequences of not having good intelligence, enough troop strength, or poor training. It’s called the aftermath of Iraqi Freedom. By targeting military families, these businesses directly affect the security of our nation. They must be helping the terrorists then, right?

But it’s not just the terrorists who use suicide bombing as their main military tactic who are being aided and abetted by these payday loan companies. It is also local, home grown terrorists (read politicians who permit these predators to continue using these tactics) who benefit through donations from the payday loan industry. And as one lawmaker admits, the rise of these lending houses were made possible by lawmakers across the nation.

“We made it a much more profitable industry,” said Rep. Shay Schual-Burke, D-Normandy Park, referring to legislative action in 2003 that raised the maximum payday loan by $200 to $700. “We actually authorized these predators. I’m not too proud to say that we made a mistake.”

The answer to the problem goes beyond just regulating this ‘industry’ though. At the heart of the matter are two very key issues: education, and congressional responsibility.

Education, real education about personal finances, budgeting, and spending habits need to be addressed in high school or even junior high school if citizens (military and civilian alike) are ever going to break the cycle of debt. We need to teach people that a responsible personal budget can go a long way towards achieving a more satisfying life. And regardless of income level, knowing how to budget what you earn and owe is a skill all should have.

Congressional Responsibility, taking the form of laws against obscene interest rates, caps on maximum short-term loan amounts, fuller disclosure, and limiting the number of short-term loans a person can get would be a start. But for military families, the bigger solution lies in fully funding military benefits, raising military pay at the lower ends of the pay scale, and creating and funding programs for the families of active duty personnel.

Defenders of payday loans need not come crying to me about how these companies are just providing a service, and if you’re dumb enough to use them you get what you deserve. They may be providing a service, but so does the mob, and I’ve yet to see a politician stand up in praise of mob practices. And to call someone who is strapped for cash dumb does not address the issue at all. In many cases, the only dumb thing they did was take a job in the military during a time of war with a Congress and White House more concerned with corporate profits than the men and women who are keeping those profits afloat with blood and bullets.

I don’t know what we can do about this, other than pressure lawmakers to rein in these companies. But somehow I don’t think this is high on their radar screen at the moment. They all seem too busy battling each other over gay marriage, abortion rights, and other hot button non-issues. That, and racing to be the next politician indicted for corruption.

Just a little something to think about as we enter the Memorial Day Weekend.

(Cross posted at Bring It On)

Dictionary.com provides the following definition:

my·o·pi·a (n.)
Lack of discernment or long-range perspective in thinking or planning.

Is it just me or have the American people fallen into a kind of stupor that allows them to accept the myopic worldview force fed to them on a daily basis by an incompetent and corrupt government and a complicit media establishment?

I mean really, what gives? When did our great experiment in Democracy, so cleverly envisioned by our founding forefathers, become little more than an exercise in futility disguised as representational government? At what point did people decide that the only thing that mattered was the here and now? When did we decide that our responsibility ended at the edge of our yard? And how did we get to this point?

These are the kinds of questions that fill my mind so often these days, especially as I attempt to enter the arena of politics. As I sit and listen to all the madness coming from the halls of power, I have a hard time reconciling the widespread lack of concern from average people with the seemingly obvious demise of our way of life, and by extension, the lives of our future descendants. It has been said that when Native American elders faced an important decision, they projected their decisions ahead seven generations. Clearly, even if this is an exaggeration, the people who first settled, then tamed this country, wanted their culture to persevere throughout time, and the decisions they made with regards to land and resource usage and inter-tribal relations were designed to mitigate future strife among themselves and their offspring. Sure, they were decimated by European colonialists. But that failure to endure in the face of superior weaponry and a completely different worldview does not diminish their contemplative ways or the success they had for thousands of years. Their way of life and of living offered them satisfaction and prosperity on their terms without destroying that opportunity for future generations. Had we not wiped them out and forced the remainder onto reservations, we could have learned a lot from their way of thinking. But perhaps I digress…

In truth, I already know the answers to some of the questions I posed earlier. I understand that for most people, simply staying ahead of the monthly bills and keeping the kids in school, fed, and on the straight and narrow takes up most of the available emotional and intellectual energy we have. I understand that in an increasingly complex world, the number of things happening make it impossible to focus too much on any specific governmental action or societal shift. I understand that before we can worry about what takes place outside our own personal borders, we must take care of ourselves. But at some point in our individual lives, we should be able to come to an understanding of sorts that the world extends beyond our own doorstep, and that what happens out in that world will eventually reach up to our own steps and change the way we live our own lives. It is the disconnect between that reality and our own actions that makes me scratch my head in wonder.

The dangers of narrow-mindedness are not as apparent as the symptoms of it: massive fiscal debt and the looming day of reckoning; population growth and resource exploitation; diminished standing among the nations of the world; diminished ability of the people to advance the social ladder; a turn away from knowledge towards mythology. These are the symptoms of a society looking down the tunnel and seeing only a sliver of light. We assume that the answer lies in a straight, predetermined path, when the fact is we are determining the path based on the symptoms. We are trying to solve new problems with old and tired solutions that solve little while elongating the problems. We are pushing off the effects of our troubles on to future generations to contend with. It is not something to be proud of.

This is especially true of our leadership, who seem almost completely to focus on the here and now, the me and mine of situations, with a specific goal of benefiting themselves or pursuing an agenda out of line with the average citizen. And we, the people, allow this to continue by perpetuating the myopia they project onto us with their sound bites and their hot button issues. We magnify their ineffectiveness by returning them to power time and time again. We buy into the stereotypes and labeling offered to us as discourse, and all the while, the liberties that have been given to us in the blood of our predecessors are slowly stripped away. And still, aside from a little bit of complaining or small-scale activism, we let it continue unabated and unchallenged, and we continue to enable them with our own lack of action.

Humanity rolls on through it all. The question of how much longer or in what state of being is unknown, but the projections of our current paths and mindsets are not. Any amount of reason and critical thinking will ascertain that our system is broken, is breaking more each day, and will soon be a mere shadow of its original self if we continue to stand down. Indeed, it is not just our social and governmental constructs that face serious upheaval, but our very planet itself is changing, and with it, so too will the plight of humanity change.

American ideals of freedom, equality, respect and the rule of law have proved themselves to be a sound and sustainable form of government, so long as the governed remain involved and so long as those charged with governing remember whom they stand for. But if our tendency to close our eyes to the wrongs around us continues we will soon find ourselves under another form of government, one not sought by our founders, but instead more like the one they fled from.

We have the power to end our myopia. We have the ability to change our course. We have the duty to our children to leave them with a world of hope and opportunity. But we can only do so if we step out of our cocoons once in a while and fight for what is ours. The Declaration of Independence says that what is ours is nothing more than life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But to attain these things, we must work together, and we must work for the betterment of our shared future.

The lines are being drawn in the sand. On one side stands greed and self-interest. On the other stands cooperation and opportunity for all. Where will you choose to stand?

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

As if we weren’t already aware that our nation’s experiment in ‘government by the people, for the people, and of the people’ hasn’t gone wildly astray, here’s a news item that more clearly explains the problems facing average Americans as they try to take back their government from the corrupt politicians and corporations that are turning back the hands on the clock of time to a place we thought we’d put behind us years ago.

According to an article in The Tennessean, Senate majority leader Bill Frist (R) and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R) engineered a backroom legislative maneuver to protect pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits.

In language tucked into a Defense Department appropriations bill, AT THE LAST MINUTE and WITHOUT APPROVAL OF A HOUSE-SENATE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, Frist and Hastert proposed giving immunity to companies that develop vaccines in the event there is a declared public health emergency. Basically, what they are asking is that their big pharmaceutical donors be immune from any repercussions arising from their producing, marketing, and dispensing vaccines or other health “countermeasures” that result in serious harm or death to users of said product.

Aside from the obvious pandering to high money donors at the expense of the ‘real American’ citizens, there is another issue at stake here, namely the fashion in which this language was slipped into the bill itself.

From the article: “some say going around the longstanding practice of bipartisan House-Senate conference committees’ working out compromises on legislation is a dangerous power grab by Republican congressional leaders that subverts democracy.”

While apparently not illegal, it is highly unusual for tactics such as these to be used as they ameliorate the entire reason for compromise committees to meet in the first place.

And the text of the inserted bill was reportedly written by representatives for the pharmaceutical industry and given to the lawmakers for insertion. It is somewhat germane to remind readers that Frist has received over $270,000 in campaign donations from the pharmaceutical industry since 1989.

Several problems are presented here: (a) lawmakers apparently are not writing laws themselves, but letting donors and staffers do this work, a total shirk of their actual job. They seem to have come to the conclusion that we vote them into office to collect donations that will keep them there instead of working out legislation that protects and promotes the average American’s concerns; (b) lawmakers are routinely tricked by their own leadership when it comes to working out legislation. According to the report, members of the bi-cameral committee were told that this bit of legislation was NOT in the final bill. They left the meeting only to return to the floor to vote on the bill that then included the language in question; (c) large corporations are buying off elected officials to create situations for themselves that no average citizen could get away with, such as blanket immunity for creating faulty products or services; (d) omnibus bills that contain legislation that is not even remotely related to the main thrust of the bills are common place these days and dilute the oversight power of individual members or watchdog groups until it is too late to change things.

This law was signed by the president on December 30th, 2005. So if by chance you get a bad batch of vaccine for any reason, too bad for you. You have no recourse against the makers of the vaccine for your or your loved ones ill effects.

And all this in the name of protecting America and of government for the people.

Oh yes…this piece of information came to light because of complaints by a Republican staffer, so sorry GOPers, can’t blame this on the ‘liberal media bias.”

(cross posted at Bring It On)