San Diego Peace Guy

Offline for now

2010-10-01T18:19:00.000-07:00

Since I'm no longer in San Diego, I've retired this blog.

My new blog is online here:

Coyote's Blog

I now focus primarily on digital activism, though still with an emphasis on peace and social justice.

Peace,
San Diego Peace Guy

Looking Backwards

2009-04-30T22:42:00.000-07:00

President Obama made a speech yesterday. Before I get to that, I want to tell you a story.

Imagine a middle class family, the Fishers. Imagine further that they are homeowners, being foreclosed on by a bank that was guilty of malfeasance in the current financial crisis. They need $100,000.00 within two weeks, in order to avoid foreclosure. Mr. Fisher is a computer tech, recently laid off from his job repairing computers at an affiliate of the same bank that is foreclosing on his home. Mrs Fisher is an attorney. Their three sons, Billy, Mike, and Sam, are high school students.

Mr. Fisher realizes that if he were to make a device that could fool an ATM machine into thinking he had legal access to the bank's accounts, he could withdraw enough money to stop the foreclosure. Mrs Fisher believes that they should try to refinance the house, or negotiate with the bank, or as a last resort, declare bankruptcy.

Mr Fisher scoffs at that, and sets to work. He builds a complicated electronic key card. With his son Billy driving the getaway car, he goes to a several local ATM machines over a period of about a week, and withdraws a total of $100,000.00.

The Fishers pay the bank and save their home from foreclosure. When Mrs Fisher finds out what has happened, she is outraged. Mr Fisher, and Billy Fisher, move out to the furnished garage. Mrs Fisher takes over management of the household finances, and becomes the de facto head of the household. Her sons Mike and Sam fully support her in this.

After a few weeks, the police catch up with the Fishers. Mr Fisher and Billy are arrested, and go to trial. Mrs Fisher, as head of household, and as an attorney, reluctantly takes his case.

She argues in court that indeed, mistakes were made, and that it is absolutely true, that rigging an ATM machine to grant access to a bank's accounts is in fact robbery. However, she notes that the family's immediate security was threatened, and that without the admittedly flawed and shameful behavior of Mr Fisher, the family could have lost their home. She advises the court that Mr Fisher is now employed as a janitor in the local high school, and is no longer pursuing computer technology as a career.

She urges the court to look forward, not backward. She argues that clearly the Fishers have embraced change, as evidenced by the fact that Mrs Fisher is now the head of household, and that Mr Fisher has taken up a humble residence in the family garage. She explains that it would do no good to dredge up the past, and reiterates that it's time to look to the future, and focus on what needs to be done to keep the family afloat. She goes on to say that she reviewed very carefully the "enhanced cash withdrawal technique" used by Mr Fisher, and that though it could be argued it was effective in the short term, its use has damaged the family reputation.

Mr Fisher is currently on trial for grand theft, with Billy charged as an accessory. This makes it very clear that in the long term, the family's security was endangered, not helped. She explains that she has reviewed the matter with her sons Mike and Sam, who were and are both opposed to the technique. It is now a family decision to no longer use enhanced cash withdrawal. It would be unjust to have Billy suffer because he was misled by Mr Fisher, when Billy thought he was just working hard to keep the Fisher family safe.

In fact, fully sixty percent of the Fisher Family remain opposed to the use of enhanced withdrawal. She promises the court that in her position as head of household, she has forbidden its future use, and requests that the court drop the charges, since it's obvious to everyone that this will no longer happen in the future.

As the above is clearly a convincing argument, the court drops the charges, and the Fishers go home. Mr and Mrs Fisher remain estranged, with Mr Fisher and Billy exiled to the garage for the foreseeable future. 3 out of 5 Fishers are determined that enhanced cash withdrawal will no longer happen, and only 2 out of 5 still believe that it helped to keep the family safe. We have nothing to worry about.

The above is an admitted cliche, a simple device to highlight what I feel is a simple truth obscured by pundits, politicians, and news anchors using euphemisms. The real truth is never discussed except on blogs.

President Obama has clearly stated, repeatedly, that he has “a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.” Last night, he referred to torture as a "shortcut" and said that while "we got information from individuals that were subjected to these techniques", that fact doesn't let us know whether we could have gotten the same information "without resorting to these techniques".

Is it me? Why is this even a debate in our country? What world do we live in, where the use of torture (Torture!) is debated in the media, and whether it is effective or not is even a matter for consideration in the discussion? Why is there any question about whether or not to prosecute those who have admitted to committing these crimes? I know that I am not alone in this position, and for full disclosure, I support Obama in most domestic issues. I differ on many, though not all, foreign policy issues. I wonder what it is he's trying to do. He's too intelligent to think that by trying to brush off the rule of law, that he will quiet dissent on this, either in the U.S. or internationally. My hope is that he has a broad plan to encourage continued discussion, and to keep people riled up about it so that the issue doesn't die. My fear is that he just wants it to go away.

Either way, it doesn't matter. Our job is the same. Push him. Push the Justice Department. Push hard.

This is not a political argument. This is about upholding the rule of law. The right, enabled by the media, has characterized this "debate" as partisan bickering, and has insinuated that if (and when) Democrats are implicated, that the left would immediately shut up. To me it's clear that Democrats as well as Republicans are implicated, both as direct actors and as informed bystanders, and that a prosecutor needs to investigate and see just how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Click here to Email Eric Holder. Tell him to prosecute. Tell him to uphold the rule of law. Tell him to uphold his oath.

Peace

Veterans Untreated

2008-11-27T09:24:00.000-08:00

This is a story all too common, very clearly portraying how low a priority veteran's care is, and how misdiagnosis and neglect by both the military and the VA can lead to tragedy.

I am hopeful that this message, clearly given by our own Jim Brown, Congressman Bob Filner, and brilliantly reported by Noah Gonzales will help energize us in this next phase of our struggle.

Peace

Stop Blackwater Protest September 13, 2008 Otay Mesa

2008-08-03T16:52:00.000-07:00

Click here for a full-size flyer in English
Chascar aquí para un folleto completo en Español

Directions: 805 South to 905 East
Right on Brittania, Left onto Siempre Viva Rd
(park on the street)

for more info call 619-263-9301 or 619-528-8883
(en Español 619-270-5470)
or go to www.prcsd.org

Sponsored by:
San Diego Peace Resource Center
www.prcsd.org

Activist San Diego
www.activistsandiego.org

Citizens Oversight Project
www.citizensoversight.org

San Diego Veterans For Peace
www.sdvfp.org

San Diego Coalition for Peace & Justice
www.sdcpj.org

(and others)

Tip of the Iraq Iceberg

2008-03-30T23:19:00.000-07:00

At the bottom of the post is a graphic I created, with the intention of showing what lies beneath the general understanding of the majority of Americans. This gives a dramatic visual representation of the actual human cost of the Iraq War.

The numbers flashing on the news screen are almost always reflective only of U.S. military deaths. There are reports daily of Iraqi civilians being killed, 10 here, 15 there, 5 someplace else, but those seem to be somehow edited out of the public consciousness.

The Virginia Tech shootings were front page news for weeks across the nation, and still from time to time there are stories about the families of the victims. There is the equivalent of a Virginia Tech in Iraq every day.

This is a photograph of a pair of baby shoes that I presented to Vicki Middleton in January 2007. She is Duncan Hunter's chief of staff, and I gave them to her when I participated in a lobby effort to the San Diego congressional delegation. I am Duncan Hunter's constituent, so I made the presentation.

Attached to the shoes is the name of an Iraqi child killed by an American bomb. Her name was Akea Hmza Mushad Alhgebr, and she was eleven months old.

The current graphic shows the human cost as of March 24, 2008. Click on a particular section of the map for links to citations for those statistics.

Click Here to see a larger version of the map.

Click Here for a larger version of the map - with citations.

Peace

Race & Politics

2008-03-18T18:19:00.000-07:00

This speech, more than any other, convinces me that Barack Obama is the best hope for America. I have heard no speech in the history of our country that more succinctly and eloquently defines the problem we face with racism. It covers the entirety of the issue, from both sides, recognizing the justice that is beneath the real issues faced by all Americans. At the same time, it offers the solution. This man does not shy away from divisive issues, he does not hide from controversy, he confronts it, and in these "mere words" he begins to actually rekindle my hope for a better future.

If you are receiving this post as an email, you can view the video by clicking here.

Yes we can.

Peace

Obama and Hope

2008-01-03T22:28:00.000-08:00

I've had some time to sit and reflect recently, and many things have been going through my mind.

To start with, I think I need to explain a few things about myself, and about why I am posting this blog. I am pretty involved locally with the peace and justice movement here in San Diego. The group I'm most involved with is the San Diego chapter of Veterans For Peace. I also do some work with the San Diego Coalition for Peace and Justice, and am a freeway blogger.

I am deeply concerned about the direction of the United States. In March of 2006, I came to a turning point, and that is when I started to become active politically. At first I believed that there was momentum behind the peace movement, and that it was time to take back our government. I went to peace rallies. I sent letters. I became involved with Vets for Peace, formally joining and being elected as an officer in our local chapter. Following the election, full of hope and feeling that the newly elected Democratic majority would be behind us, in January of 2007, I went to Washington DC. I participated in a large national protest, and an effort to lobby congress to defund the war. The effort failed, largely because the Democrats have accepted the Republican talking point that defunding the war is not supporting the troops.

I continued to work at it, writing my congressman repeatedly (I have the good fortune to have Duncan Hunter as my representative here in California's 52nd district). In addition, I have participated in meetings with the other members of the San Diego congressional delegation, gotten involved peripherally in the East County Democratic Club, and jumping on the Moveon.org bandwagon from time to time.

I have become frustrated with trying to influence politicians. I now feel pretty strongly, most of the time, that involvement in the mainstream political process has become increasingly irrelevant. Grassroots activism is what fills most of my time, and as my friend Elliott Adams says (to paraphrase): "The members of congress are not our leaders, they are our followers." By this he explained that he means that politicians will blow with the wind, and if they feel that their jobs depend on it, they will change their vote. If enough people get motivated to change things, the politicians will respond out of fear of losing the next election. So since my disillusionment with most attempts to directly influence politicians, I have been learning and attempting to apply grassroots actions to try and move the public.

I am, however, a political geek, and while mostly my politics are of the grassroots variety, and not specifically aimed at the political process, I pay attention. The candidate for President that I most identify with, and whose positions I share most closely is Dennis Kucinich. Kucinich has no chance in this election. A few days ago, Dennis Kucinich asked Iowans that supported him to caucus for Obama as their second choice. This intrigued me, and made me take a second look at this candidate.

About eight months ago I did research on all of the various candidates. In the midst of that, I went to Obama's website, watched his videos along with everyone else's, and the one thing that struck me was that while I agreed with the basic positions of most of the candidates, Obama was the only one to actually move me.

I read Obama's book The Audacity of Hope. After reading it, I was impressed, more or less, but was not satisfied with some of his positions. I'm pretty liberal on social issues. Obama's tepid stance on gay rights and to be honest, his identity as a deeply faithful Christian combined to turn me off a little bit. That combined with the standard American politician position okeydokey-ing the use of force as a tool of foreign policy, even only if "justified", turned me elswhere.

Now, looking back at that, I may have reacted with a bit of prejudice because of his relative conservatism compared to where I stand on things, and because of his faith. I have moved my politics increasingly to the left, and Obama's position is carved out pretty far out towards the center, so that takes me out of my comfort zone a bit. My second look has caused me to reevaluate what I think. To be completely honest here, there is no candidate, except Dennis Kucinich, who even approaches where I am politically, and I am enough of a pragmatist to recognize that I have to vote for someone who is likely to end the war, restore the rule of law in America, restore our civil liberties and the checks and balances in our government, and attempt to restore our sullied reputation internationally.

Kucinich might not be able to do that even if it was possible for him to be elected, because he is, like me, a liberal nonviolent tree-hugging hippie moonbat. It is difficult to motivate people when they see you as an extremist.

Obama gave his Iowa Caucus victory speech tonight:

Damn it's a good speech, it made me cry. I'm an optimist, despite everything, and Obama stakes out a position that we can all see as rational. He includes all of us, as Ghandi did, and as Dr. King did. He could move the center. I feel some of the hope that he speaks of, and I haven't felt that from our political process for a while. I'm not convinced yet, but my vote meter just moved three pegs in the Obama direction.

Peace

The White House Coup of 1933

2007-11-25T19:38:00.000-08:00

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Interview with Naomi Wolf

2007-11-24T11:15:00.000-08:00

I had to post this, hopefully my doing so will help spread this important message.

If you are getting this message in an email, click the above link to get to my actual blog and watch the video.

Peace

Big Fires and Little Fires

2007-10-29T18:01:00.000-07:00

One of the things I have to deal with whenever disaster strikes is a feeling of futility. When 9/11 happened, I went into a funk that lasted over a month, and some of those feelings continued for almost a year. Most things that I dealt with seemed insignificant, and I felt like my job, my service work, the TV shows I liked, the books I was reading, all these things seemed to shrink into unworthiness, when compared to the tragedy that the nation was facing.

I live in San Diego county, and my community from time to time has to deal with wildfires. In 2003, the Crest Fire burned down the home of one of my best friends. This week, San Diego was hit by the worst firestorm in recent history. In this fire, the same person was evacuated, and while he didn't lose his home again, while he and his family were still under evacuation orders, his father passed away in the hospital from an unrelated illness. I got through the crisis myself just fine, other than some minor inconvenience and drama, but when I see people all around me whose lives are so affected, I have to stop and think.

click the map above for an interactive version

The firefighters themselves were absolutely impressive. The dedication and commitment of professional firefighters amazes me every time I hear about them. I have nothing negative whatsoever to say about the men and women who met these fires head on. Who else runs toward danger, rather than away from it?

The government's handling of the situation, and the bureaucratic bungling of the resources needed to fight the fires are another matter. Supposedly the fires are in their "last throes" as I write this, and there are several things about this series of events that are starting to spark a bit of anger.

The first thing that pisses me off relates to the administrative mismanagement of the firefighting effort. There are some press reports stating that there were not enough aircraft to fight the fires, at least initially, and that bureaucracy hampered the efforts. Scharzenegger denies it, but those reports are backed up by a statement by the Fire Chief in Orange County, Chip Prather: “It is an absolute fact: Had we had more air resources, we would have been able to control this fire." Bureacracy slowed the utilization of these resources, and this put a huge obstacle in the way of getting these fires under control.

San Diego investigative reporter Michael Turko, from KUSI local news,
interviews Ruben Grijalva, Cal Fires Chief (click above for video link)

There is an ongoing but (at least as far as my research has uncovered) unsubstatiated rumor in San Diego that during Bush's visit, the aircraft fighting the fire were grounded while Bush was in town. This rumor has been aired on local talk radio but only when brought up by people who call in. There was apparently an interview with a firefighter about this on KUSI, but I am unable to find a transcript. There are hearsay reports on blogs that mention this, but no person who has first-hand knowledge of aircraft being grounded has come forward, and no media report can be found online that mentions this at all. Even if the rumors are true, this comes as no surprise.

One thing that is verifiable is that Bush's visit caused a major traffic jam, stopping evacuees from returning to their homes.

My own congressman, Duncan Hunter, has repeatedly jumped into the limelight, trying to use the fires to fuel his limping Presidential campaign. On FOX news, he tries to portray Democrats as using the fires for political purposes, while using that appearance and others (click here) (and click here) to keep his face in front of the cameras.

I find it interesting that the proposed Blackwater West Mercenary Encampment, an new training facility project under review by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, is located in Portrero near the source of the Harris Fire. I would have thought it likely that Blackwater USA might have had a motive for causing this kind of local disruption, but since the fire affected their construction site, it is within the realm of possiblity that they are as much a victim of the fire as the rest of the county.

Facility currently at the proposed site for Blackwater West

Firefighters onsite at proposed Blackwater West area

Graded road built on property for proposed Blackwater facility
(do they have a road grading & building permit?)

(thanks to Ray Lutz for these photos, they were taken by him while he was working as a cameraman for a New York Times reporter covering the fires)

What is certain is that the residents of Portrero have suffered, and that the proposed Blackwater project would increase the long-term risk of fire.

Meanwhile, back in the city of San Diego, donations of food, necessaries, blankets and clothing stacked up at Qualcomm Stadium, and evacuees at Chicano Park in San Diego went without. Many hispanic immigrants (most of them legal residents) who were evacuated to Qualcomm and other evacuation centers were given short shrift on supplies by non-hispanic officials.

I do know that regardless of the chest thumping and attaboys by Schwarzenegger and Sanders, there were significant problems with the evacuees. Something that has been basically unnoticed by most of the mainstream media is that while Qualcomm was used successfully during the week as an evacuation center, the San Diego Chargers kicked about 500 people out of their parking lot on Friday.

All this drives home to me, especially as a resident of San Diego County, that the lessons learned at Katrina were most assuredly applied here. The rich white people evacuated from million-dollar homes were well taken care of and paraded in front of the cameras, while the poor brown people were hungry and cold, and kept away from the media. Relief efforts to the remote community of Portrero were hampered by San Diego County Sheriffs despite the urgent need of residents, FEMA gave a press conference that was carefully prepared to portray them in the best light, and as usual, the national mainstream media failed to cover the real stories, and the Bush administration succeeded in distracting attention from itself.

Peace

Charger Day Freeway Blog

2007-10-28T18:02:00.000-07:00

The last week has been rough in some ways. My office was closed for the week because of the wildfires ravaging San Diego County. The fires have really affected everyone, and though I was fortunate enough that no members of my immediate family were evacuated or lost their homes, I do know several people who were evacuees. I work for a large company, and I'm sure that when I get back to work on Monday, there will be some bad news regarding co-workers, I know that many people I work with live in Encinitas, or Campo, or Poway.

The time off has given me time to reflect, and to make signs. My good friend Kate the Freeway blogger (see San Diego's Newest Freeway Blogger) and I spent a lot of time this week hanging out, and Friday I brought over a big pile of my signs, and Kate and I combined efforts to complete both mine and the ones she had made (mine are the ones in Jester Font). She has a great system of putting gromets near the corners and edges of the signs, and using zip-ties for attaching them to chainlink fences. This works much better than bungies (though we still use bungies for salvaged signs and to reinforce if there is wind). The signs with gromets are harder to take down without tools, but it still doesn't damage fences.

Sunday seemed perfect for blogging. The Chargers and the city of San Diego evicted the evacuees from Qualcomm Stadium so that the all-important football game could be played on schedule. This happened sort of low-key after most of the TV cameras had left, and I'm sure that Mayor Sanders and the Governator were careful to take credit for the good job that they didn't do with keeping evacuees safe and warm. Our friend Barb suggested that we go out on game-day morning to make sure that all the fans driving to the Q would have the benefit of our hard work.

Sunday morning at 5:15 we met at a parking lot somewhere in San Diego County, and set out. The first sign we set up was a large "Arrest Bush sign on a berm overlooking Highway 8. The previous week we had set up a similar sign, but it either blew over or was taken down by someone. We staked the new one into the ground, and later, after the sun came up, got a couple of good shots of it from across the freeway.

Barb brought some big chalk pieces, and she (and we) had fun with those as well.

After that we headed to one of our favorite pedestrian walkways, and hung another sign. It was still pretty dark so some of the shots came out hard to see, but we came back later and got some good ones.

Throughout the rest of the morning we hit all the best spots, some in old territory and some in new as Barb says (she absolutely knows most of the best blogging spots all through the greater San Diego metropolitan area).

We even did a bit of train-blogging.

One set of signs was still up from two weeks ago, we will keep track of those moving forward - week 3 and counting!

We had some trouble with a few of the signs.

A few signs were torn down (probably by some neo-con football fans), and we came back, repaired the damage, and hung them right back up. The first sign from early in the morning on the berm overlooking Hwy 8 had been staked into the ground. Someone pulled up the stakes, and used one of them to stab into the sign several times. One stake was thrown about 30 feet away, and the sign was tossed down the embankment (does someone need anger management classes?).

We salvaged the sign, and took it across the freeway, and hung it up facing the other way. This picture was taken while I stood at the place the sign originally stood. The holes that were stabbed into the sign actually made it easier to hang.

We had salvaged the sign we put up from 2 weeks ago at the berm that had come down, and this weekend we put it up on the College Avenue overpass, which is right on Hwy 8, on the way to the Stadium from east county. It came down after only a few hours, but with the traffic on game day - easily several tens of thousands of people saw it.

After that we drove around getting a few better pictures of our signs, then Barb dropped Kate & I off by my car. We went to breakfast (coffee and eggs always taste better after a morning of freeway blogging). We talked about the day, and then just had to go back and get (just a few) more pictures of the day's work.

All for now,
Peace,
Dave

P.S. Our friend Jeff missed hooking up with us this morning, but posted this sign by himself. I just got the info, here's the pic:

Now that's really it...
Peace,
D

Perjury Boy

2007-07-25T22:35:00.000-07:00

Ironic, isn't it?

Considering how pissed off certain neo-conservatives and ultra right-wing pundits were when Bill Clinton lied about his knobber in the oval office leading up to his impeachment, it seems odd how silent many of them are today.

Clear evidence of criminal acts by Attorney General Gonzales are now available and reported in the mainstream media.

Keith Olbermann Tuesday 7/24/07

Click here for a link to a video from todays show:
Keith Olbermann Wednesday 7/25/07

TruthOut interview with David Iglesias 5/30/07

So let's get on with it already. Full-on prosecution of Gonzales, following an impeachment. Impeachment proceedings against Cheney & Bush, then install Pelosi for a few months leading up to Kucinich's swearing-in ceremony.

(I can dream, can't I?)

Peace

IMPEACH NOW!

2007-07-25T06:30:00.000-07:00

Will sent this, had to throw it up...

Video blogging for now, essay in the works.

Peace

Corporatist Media or Fascism

2007-07-24T17:42:00.000-07:00

Hello all,

I saw this, and had to share it. This is important stuff.

Blue Blues

2007-07-21T22:00:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking a lot recently. One of the things that has started to irritate me more and more as time goes on is how badly the Democratic Party has been representing my positions on issues.

My irritation level continues to grow, especially when the Democrats bluster and threaten, but still continue to fund the war. They go round and round on healthcare, civil liberties, and election fraud, but refuse to take any direct action. When obstructed by the Republicans, they give up, and point across the aisle, and ineffectively attempt to blame the other side, instead of sticking to their guns and presenting the issue again until public opinion forces the other side to change. They angrily denounce the President, Vice-President, Attorney General and others in the administration, but even when confronted with direct evidence of crimes, still refuse to even consider impeachment. This may be starting to change, I read something today that John Conyers said that gave me hope.

Happy Harry Potter Day, everyone...

Peace

Memorial Day 2007

2007-05-28T22:12:00.000-07:00

So it's been a while since I posted anything.

I've been in a processing stage, and have been suffering from a sort of writer's block because my thoughts and feelings, and political positions, have undergone a radical change. Basically a paradigm shattered, and it has taken me a while to pick up the pieces and construct a new one.

I've been a peace activist for a little over a year, and have become quite active in participating in protest actions, lobbying congress, and generally trying to help make the public more aware of the cost of this awful war, and the cost of our losing many of the basic rights guaranteed us in the constitution.

The last several months have been a whirlwind, and it's been difficult to keep up and stay focused, both at work and in my activism, while I've been trying to adjust to a completely new worldview. The thing that's changed is that I no longer believe in violence. It's taken me a while to completely accept that position. For most of my life I have accepted the partial truth (as I see it now) that most war is bad, and that only rarely do situations occur that require the use of national force. I now believe that all violence is inherently wrong, on every level, and that there is no such thing as a justifiable war.

I've been doing a lot of reading. The first thing I learned is that nonviolence is not passive, and that it does not mean submission. Nonviolent action is often aggressive, and should be considered, in many cases, a form of conflict. True personal and political nonviolence is courageous, and is not only an effective alternative to violence in resolving conflicts, but is potentially more effective, especially in its effects.

My writing has been stalled because it has taken me almost five months to completely wrap my head and my heart around not only nonviolent political action, but also around a personal commitment to nonviolence. I hereby make a personal commitment to nonviolence in my personal life, and in my political actions.

Still eluding me is a complete understanding of the strategic aspects of nonviolent political actions, but I am learning. My long-term interest in strategy and tactics is helping me with this. Curiously, my background in market research may also be useful, but more about that in later posts.

Today was a good day. Arlington West went very successfully, with a very positive reaction from the public, and from the local press. Several local news stations were represented, and local Fox channel 6 apparently is doing a retrospective with past Arlington West memorials, comparing them to today's event, including the difference in the public reaction and support of the memorial and the change in attitudes towards the war.

This video was recommended by Sally, a Vets For Peace member from Texas, that I know only online from the VFP National Recruitment committee. I include it because it is Memorial Day, and it expresses sentiments about the current administration that I share.

I've made some decisions recently, and having made those decisions, I feel more at ease with myself about a great many things. My writing now will resume, though my take on things will be a bit different perhaps. I am not a Satyagrahi. Yet.

Peace

Look at the Birdie

2007-02-15T00:11:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Doug, for giving me the idea for this piece

The tragic injury of the heroic Barbaro, winner of the 2006 Kentucky Derby, moved many people, and the circumstances of his death after his latest surgery occupied much of the media's time. I love animals, and the death of an animal like Barbaro, who was a champion, might have attracted my interest, and might even have taken up some part of my thoughts, if I hadn't realized that the media coverage of his death was at least partly an attempt to distract me from more important events.

The media started talking about Barbaro on about January 16th,coincidentally as the planning for the large national peace protest in Washington DC on January 27th was nearing its final stages.

Larger View Left

Larger View Right

The furor over Barbaro continued, through the attendance of over 500,000 people at the march on that Saturday, until he was put down on January 29th, the same day that many of the people involved in the protest march in Washington were lobbying congress to get them to vote to end the funding for the war. Well over 90% of all of the members of Congress, both House and Senate, or their staff, received a delegation from peace activists. There was a somewhat dramatic arrest made, of some of those activists, in the Rayburn House office building due to an overreaction by the Capitol Police.

Somehow, those events never made it into the mainstream press, but a horse being put down took up hours of the news during that time.

Anna Nicole Smith, similarly, has been portrayed in the media as a tragic figure. Her son's death in her hospital room a few months ago, and her "heroic" fight all the way to the Supreme Court for her inheritance rights has been played repeatedly over the airwaves. Her recent death in a hotel room of unknown causes caused MSNBC to ask the question that is apparently on all of our minds: Did Anna Nicole choke on her own vomit?

There is no question that Smith led a tragic life. She was a sad and compulsive woman, who seemed only to feel alive when the world was watching. Pandering to her compulsion, even after her death, is simply bad taste.

The events in the world at large continue to play out. A large-scale confrontation between the United States and Iran looms in our immediate future, unless someone changes course rapidly. This could drag us into a long and difficult war with a formidable enemy, at the very time when our military is exhausted and demoralized.

Headlines of Anna Nicole compete with the latest claims of "evidence" of intelligence showing that Iran provided weapons for attacks on U.S. troops.

O.J.'s latest public villainy distracts us from less publicized reports of the attempt of some Senate Democrats to fix that part of the Patriot Act that has allowed Gonzalez's latest attempt to limit prosecutions on political allies of the president.

What has happened to the media in this country? Why do important stories go unreported while frivolous tabloid crap gets shoved down our throats? Why do stories that are so big that they have to be reported get drowned out by provocative scandal? The simple answer is that the news is "ratings driven" and that people watch what they want to see, and the networks are just providing that. Bull. The networks put stuff on that they know will be distracting, and they do it on behalf of corporate interests.

A recent serious article rated the news content of the Jon Stewart Show as being "as substantive" as network news. This indicates to me not so much that the Jon Stewart show should be considered as an important source of news, but more that the content of serious network news programs has been dumbed down so much that the news content is no better than an admittedly good comedy show.

Similarly, the Republicans are refusing even to debate the war or the escalation on its merits. On C-Span over the last few days, during the House debates on the non-binding resolution, the Republicans have hammered on talking points over and over trying to frame the debate on the "Global War on Terror". They have characterized retreat from Iraq as defeat by the terrorists, as if the war in Iraq, and victory there, has anything to do with defeating Terrorism.

It seemed odd, that they are so much on the same page, until my friend Barbara pointed out on a local talk radio program this morning that they are literally reading from the same page. A memo from John Shadegg(R-AZ) and Pete Hoekstra(R-MI) to the Republican caucus was leaked and is posted on Steny Hoyer's Majority Leader web page, showing the talking points they were spoon fed. If the previous link breaks at some point, I have uploaded another copy of it here.

This also is a program of distraction. There are three levels of deception here.

First, within the framework of the "Global War on Terror" argument, the Republicans wave the flag, and talk about defeating Islamic Extremists. They state that radical Islamists pose a threat to Americans (true). They then state that the extreme views of terrorists help fuel the war in Iraq (also true). Their final premise is that the threat from terrorists is global in nature (true, and well supported by statistics in their memo). The Republicans then leap to two conclusions. Withdrawal from Iraq would cause an escalation of the violence, and Americans would be endangered at home. The argument is logically flawed. For those familiar with logic, it is a clear example of a fallacious argument. The facts presented in the premises are true, but they don't prove the conclusion.

Second, the framework of the argument itself is not valid. The Iraq war has never been about fighting terror, this is about oil. Iraq itself had nothing to do with terrorism until we invaded the country. The problem with global terrorism, exacerbated by our invasion in Iraq, is independent of any "success" or "failure" in that country.

Third, the debate isn't about withdrawing from Iraq at all, this is supposed to be a debate about whether or not to support the escalation. They are refusing to address the issue of escalating the war, or the mistakes made in Iraq, at all. They are, as Shadegg & Hoekstra state in the memo, afraid to debate the Democrats on the substance of the issue at all, because they know they will lose. It says in the memo, specifically:
The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily. If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose.

When we do leave, whenever that happens, two things will happen immediately. The insurgents will no longer be attacking Americans, and with us gone, they will be less likely to consider the Iraqi Military and Police forces as collaborators. There is sectarian violence, and there are terrorist attacks, but these are harder to stop because of cover in the form of attacks by insurgents on American forces and Iraqi security forces.

Nobody knows exactly what will happen when we leave. It is certainly a real, and even likely possibility that the violence in Iraq would dramatically increase immediately following our withdrawal. Would that be sustained? That is hard to say. It certainly is true however, that withdrawal of American troops would remove some of the motivation for violence. As I have said before, leaving will be difficult whether we leave now, or later. It is not a question of whether we will leave, but when. Our presence in Iraq is untenable, and cannot last.

The administration quietly moves corporate interests, American soldiers, and money around like pieces on a game board, while dangling salacious video of Anna Nicole to keep the public sedated. While hundreds of thousands of people march on the nations capitol, the numbers are under-reported, and the death of a horse is trumpeted to the people. For those of us that are paying attention, Republicans in Congress indulge in scripted misdirection on C-Span in an attempt to distract us from what is really going on.

This misdirection in the media is frightening. As Edward R. Murrow said of television in his speech at the RTNDA convention in Chicago, October 15, 1958:
"This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box."

Control of the media is the first step in controlling people. Mussolini knew that.

"Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels. A propaganda organization employs propagandists who engage in propagandism—the applied creation and distribution of such forms of persuasion."
—R.A. Nelson, A Chronology and Glossary of Propaganda in the United States, 1996

Germany had Joseph Goebbels. America has Karl Rove.

Our story is not being told. The story of the Iraq war is not being told. Who will tell it? Bill Moyers said it best, in his remarks at the National Conference for Media Reform, in Memphis on January 12th of this year:
"This is the moment freedom begins. The moment you realize someone else has been writing your story, and it's time you took the pen from his hand and started writing it yourself."

It is not too late to take back what is ours, before we slip into despotism. It is not too late to take back our freedom, to take back the soul of America. It is not up to politicians to decide our fates, but rather it is we ourselves.

Pick up a protest sign. Pick up a bullhorn. Pick up a pen. We have to win.

Peace

Ripples in the Pond

2007-02-01T01:13:00.000-08:00

First thanks to all those who provided photos & other resources for this blog. I will be creating a webshots album tomorrow (well, later today) with all the photos, create a link to it here on the blog page and email everyone on the short list a link. Too many pictures and links were sent to include everything here. I have tried my best to document accurately. If anyone has comments or feels that I left something out, please feel free to email me.

If you are looking for the video records of the events in Washington, please see my Peace Resource Page.

We have reached a new threshold in the struggle for peace. The events of the past few days were significant in many ways, and across the U.S., there were over 60 protests against the war in Iraq. In San Diego, over 2,000 participated in the event in Balboa Park. In other cities, apart from the nation's capitol, numbers at those events ranged from 200 in San Jose to over 3,000 in Los Angeles.

In Washington DC, the event was somewhat larger.

Most mainstream media outlets estimated the crowd at "tens of thousands" which was reported early, and most press outlets just seemed to run with that. There was no attempt at a credible estimate of the numbers. Event organizers, however, estimate the march as having over 500,000 people participating.

I am fortunate enough to have a family member that lives in Washington, and so with discount plane fare, was able to afford the trip. I arrived in Washington on the evening of Wednesday January 24th. Once I got settled, I called a few people that I knew were going to be in town, and made arrangements to meet a few people the next day.

Thursday morning I took the Metro (subway) downtown, and met with some members of Veterans for Peace (VFP) at their hotel. The four of us (Bruce, Will, Elliott, and myself) had a leisurely bite and coffee, and discussed a variety of things as well as plans for the next few days. For them it was old home week, with reminiscences of past marches and other protest events, while for me it was a learning experience. I am relatively new to activism, and am trying to emulate a sponge when I am around people with knowledge and experience.

Later that day a Veterans For Peace event "Support and Defend the Constitution" was planned at 2:00pm. The event basically was veterans and others affirming or re-affirming our oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. There was also readings from VFP's case for impeachment, and statements by several VFP members, including Colonel Ann Wright, who resigned her position in the U.S. Department of State when the United States invaded Iraq, and has been active in the peace movement ever since.

Following that, three of our original group (minus Elliott, he had to go do some more organizing - he's a busy guy) went tramping around DC with protest signs. I was mostly a tag-along, without an actual sign until later in the trip. We made a special trip to the White House, and posed with a large banner. The Secret Service (uniform division) made a special point of getting our names, though they were happy to get just our first names. When they asked if we planned any civil disobedience today, Will cheerfully told them "not today".

After that, we walked through the cold (by that time it was snowing) back to their hotel, and after checking my email and hanging out for a bit, I headed back.

Thursday night I found out through the grapevine (thanks Barbara!) that Elliott needed help with security at the stage area on the east end of the Mall, toward the Capitol. I volunteered to do a shift from 3:00am to 6:00am Friday morning. Though it was cold, it was something that needed to be done, though that pretty much wrecked me for anything else during the day on Friday.

Friday evening I went to a candlelight vigil, again in front of the White House, focusing on the torture issue. After that event, we went as a group to the Harrington Hotel, and met in a conference room arranged by Barbara. We started the evening as an eclectic group of activists from all over the U.S. (plus one Aussie and an American woman living in Rome).

There were a lot of different people there, Vets for Peace people, Camp Casey Alumni, various San Diego activists, Code Pink people, a variety of Freeway Bloggers, and a few progressively minded people we swept up off the street. The thing all of us had in common was the experience of working with, hanging with, or experiencing the consequences of knowing the amazing Barbara Cummings. We agreed to call ourselves "Friends of Barbara", and to join a yahoo group, which Barbara will set up. I will post a link to it once it's established.

Friends of Barbara

Colonel Ann Wright

Crowd shot

Friday night (or technically, Saturday morning) I again did security watch at the stage structure from 12:00 to 3:00. I managed to get a few hours sleep both before and after, however, and so was ready for the march the next day.

This was really one of the most amazing days, well, ever. The Metro was choked with activists, and a bunch of us got off at the Judiciary Square stop, and since we shared a tourists knowledge of DC, managed to direct ourselves to the Mall.

I arrived early, close to 9:00am. The excitement started to build early, and a sea of protest signs soon cut off the view of the crowd. At the rally nobody on the ground really had any idea of how big it was. The plan was for Veterans and Families to lead off, so Vets For Peace, Iraq Vets Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, and Vietnam Vets Against the War were all supposed to gather at the front and march behind the celebrities. I heard only some of the speakers because we moved to the staging area partway through the rally, and things didn't go according to plan, mostly because of the size of the crowd.

The number of people was really amazing. I was actually happy to be back in the main pack of the marchers, and we went slower than most because we were negotiating our banner, which tended to get caught up on people and things. The whole thing was electrifying. The number of marchers were so great that they blew through the police barriers (without incident) and past the original parade route. The streets were choked sidewalk to sidewalk with people, and when the first of us finished the march, the last of us were starting. We completely surrounded the capitol, possibly for the first time since the sixties.

Will & Bruce (Vets For Peace)

Peace March Security Marshalls

These should give some idea of the actual size of the crowd:

San Diego Veterans For Peace

Part way up the first side of the street, on the way up the hill, there was a pitifully small group of counter-protesters, at most 75 in number. Their slogans were ignorant, and possibly racist. One guy was wearing a gas mask and holding a sign that said "Hippies Stink". There were three or four people carrying signs with a picture of Saddam in the noose, with the caption "Sic Semper Tyrranis". Since this quotes John Wilkes Booth, Lincoln's assassin, they were either completely ignorant of history with no idea of the implications of the quote, or were aware of the underlying meaning and meant to imply something else. There was no incident, and they were not a significant influence on the march.

The exuberance and good spirit of the march is what made the most impact on me. There was no confrontation that I saw, save for a few words exchanged with the counter-protesters, and everyone that I talked to had a feeling of hopefulness. The police were relaxed, though watchful, and seemed a bit bemused that there were so many marchers. The other thing that struck me was the number of young people in the march. A significant percentage of the demonstrators were in their twenties or younger. This is hopeful for the future of the peace movement.

No words necessary

Several of our local San Diego VFP members went out for dinner afterwards, then we went our separate ways.

On Sunday I attended a series of seminars hosted by Progressive Democrats of America, United for Peace and Justice, and others, on how best to lobby your congressman. There were a variety of seminars offered in the morning, and I went to a lecture on the history of Iraq since the war, and an analysis of the current political situation in Iraq. The three presenters were Rusty Eisenberg, a peace protester and former history professor; Aaron Gilante, a journalist who has been to Iraq three times during the war, the last time in 2005; and Raed Jarrar, an Iraqi National living in Washington and working as a lobbyist trying to educate government officials about Iraq. It was really an amazing amount of information, and an excellent analysis that has answered a lot of my questions about the complex mess that is otherwise known as the occupation of Iraq.

The afternoon was spent with a series of speakers advising us about a number of ways of staying on message, and making sure the congress heard what it was we were saying. In other words: De-fund the war, bring our troops home, take care of them once they are home, no war with Iran, and investigate the shit out of the Bush Administration. After we heard the speakers, we broke up by state, and got some basic information about California, then actually broke up by district. The San Diego people all got together and we decided to go to all five of our congressmen together. The appointments were sequential, and we were able to attend all of them.

First, at 9:00am, we met in the cafeteria of the Rayburn building for breakfast, and to plan the day. I got there a bit early, and got some strange looks from the congressional staffers and lobbyists having their coffee, but it was sort of fun to watch them get more and more surprised as the cafeteria began to fill up with peace activists. There were probably over a hundred of us, scattered amongst the suits.

At 11:00am we went to the office of Duncan Hunter (R-CA, 52nd District).

I was a point person for this one, since I am one of his constituents, and had gone through something of an obstacle course, along with a few others, trying to get a meeting scheduled. I ended up getting the meeting arranged with his office. Hunter himself was out of town, campaigning for President in New Hampshire. Our meeting was with Vicki Middleton, his Chief of Staff. The meeting lasted about thirty-five minutes, and mostly Ms. Middleton just took notes and nodded. She did clarify some positions, but was somewhat evasive about his positions on pretty much everything. I myself know where he stands on most things, based on our recent correspondence. I think we did make an impact on her when I presented her with a pair of baby shoes with the name of Akea Hmza Mushad Alhgebr, who was an Iraqi child killed in the war at the age of 11 months.

On the way out of Hunter's office, there was a camera crew filming some kind of award being given to Congresswoman Woolsey for, as Jeeni Criscenzo put it, "Having a spine". Jeeni got interviewed, and then handed me the mike, and the camera started rolling and I did the best I could.

Our next meeting was not until 1:00pm, so we had decided as a group to attend a memorial service event. Several dozen people were in the courtyard of the Rayburn building near the reflecting pool. It was their intent to follow in spirit the example of the group known as the White Rose Society, a group of students that said "We will not be silent" and protested the Nazi atrocities during World War II. This event was to be specificially in remembrance of those that have died, and in protest of the atrocities of the Bush administration. Those gathered threw white roses into the reflecting pool in the courtyard of the Rayburn House office building, and said the name of one who has fallen.

The Capitol Police decided that the event was a threat. They blocked all the doors leading to the courtyard, and refused to let anyone else in to participate in this quiet and artistic protest. They repeatedly demanded that everyone leave. In the course of this, they threatened members of the media with arrest if they continued to take pictures. Those of us blocked from entering tried to explain the circumstances of the protest, and were ordered to clear the area.

We gathered on the steps overlooking the foyer leading to the courtyard and watched. Someone started to sing Give Peace a Chance, and we all just joined in. Then we sang We Shall Overcome. There were nine brave people
who chose to stay, including an associate member of Veterans for Peace, and as they were led off in handcuffs, all of us chanted "The whole world is watching" over and over.

There is a short article in the Washington Post, that got several pertinent facts wrong, but at least there was some media coverage of it.

Those of our group that remained went on, and we next went to see Susan Davis's assistant in her office at 1:00pm (D-CA, 53rd District).

There we were well received, and were assured that Congresswoman Davis was on our side. Her assistant seemed knowledgable about the issues, and about the specifice resolutions and bills we were concerned with, and with our concerns about investigation. There was however, no real commitment to vote any particular way on any specific measure.

Then at 2:00pm we met with Brian Bilbray (R-CA, 50th District).

Congressman Bilbray was arrogant, rude, condescending, and dismissive. The meeting in his office was a long thirty minutes. Once his constituents made the basic points, the rest of us spoke up on several issues. At one point, I did get a bit heated with Mr. Bilbray when he was cross-examining me about alternatives to the American occupation of Iraq. When we left his office, everyone was a bit tense. No, everyone was really pissed off.

At 4:30pm we met with Darrell Issa (R-CA, 49th District).

He, in something of a nice contrast to Bilbray, was charming. He does have a soul, and was moved by the gift of childrens shoes. These shoes represent a specific Iraqi child, orphaned in the war. Sadly, due to the loss of his parents, nobody, including the child, knows his real name. Issa did not budge in his positions, but did acknowledge mistakes made by the Bush administration. If things continue to worsen, though he did not say it, he may change his position.

At 5:30pm we were welcomed by Bob Filner (D-CA, 51st District) into our last meeting.

Rumor has it that he changed his flight to an earlier one so that he could meet with us, and he certainly pushed it timewise to the limit, leaving right at (or a little after) 6:30, probably being a bit late for a vote. He was attentive, serious, and paid attention to everything that was said. He was already co-sponsoring all the important pieces of legislation that we were concerned about so there was perhaps no overriding reason for our visit, but for us it was a necessary and welcome change from each of the other visits. He was himself a Freedom Rider in the sixties, which is something I didn't know until another San Diegan told me after our meeting.

His suggestions were for me some of the most important things I heard that day. To paraphrase him, he said that we should engage the middle. By that I mean that even though 70% of Americans believe that we should get out of Iraq, that doesn't mean that 70% of Americans are doing something about that. Engaging those people who know something is wrong but are pretending that nothing is wrong, may be the most important work we do.

Good places to engage these folks are places like the Rotary Club, the Lions Club, Elks lodges and other places where average Americans get together. These are the places that all the politicians visit, and that all the politicians get asked questions. If Issa, Davis, and Bilbray were questioned about getting out of Iraq in these places, they might reconsider their positions more than if peace activists or liberal talk radio ask about it.

I think his point is well taken. All in all the protest and the follow up with Congress was highly effective. It was a turning point for me. I have been dedicated to the peace movement for some time now, but I see a way to effective protest. Non-violence and education are the keys to this, and there are a number of ways we can step up the pressure and let Congress know that we are watching. The question is, how do we turn that middle into people concerned enough to get involved, even in small ways. How do we enlarge our base of support and affect the opinions of the people of the United States enough to get them to see that their way of life is threatened.

Jeeni Criscenzo's blog made a good point, in that civil disobedience actions may become more important as time goes on. I have learned a great deal about people, about motivations, about fear, and about courage over the last seven days. I know that it will take a great deal of courage to stand up and force this government of ours to recognize change, and after witnessing the overreaction of the Capitol Police against a few people throwing roses in a pond, I know that many of us must take heart. I have long said that I cannot afford to be arrested, since it would affect my employment, and I don't have the financial wherewithal to just pull up stakes, but sometimes risks must be taken, where appropriate. I don't know what I will do the next time people of good conscience are being led away in handcuffs. I do know in my heart, that it was those I saw standing up for their principles and being arrested that were courageous, and it was the police who were acting out of fear.

Peace

Waging Peace

2007-01-24T07:54:00.000-08:00

I'm sitting here preparing for departure, on my way to Washington DC to participate in the national demonstration on January 27th, and to support Veterans for Peace in our Support and Defend the Constitution event on the 25th - tomorrow. I wasn't able to watch the President's address last night because I was attending the executive board meeting of our local chapter of Veteras for Peace.

To be honest, I don't think I had the stomach for it anyway. The tired repetition of the same bullshit that we've been putting up with for the last 6 years, mixed with the latest lies and spin that Monkey-Boy continues to pile on, just gives me a headache. I did read the speech, after the fact, and I must say, the President met my expectations.

Then I read the response by Jim Webb.

Now that was a hell of a speech. I didn't agree with every word that came out of his mouth, but so what. Honest, direct, intelligent, concise, and realistic. He reportedly was handed a speech by the Democratic leadership, which he promptly roundfiled and then wrote a new one himself. Not a speechwriter attempting to cover all the political points, but an actual politician speaking his own words.

Damn that's refreshing.

Just a short post, I'm waiting for my ride to the airport, then I when I get to DC it's time to pick up a plowshare.

Peace

Reading of the Names

2007-01-21T18:03:00.000-08:00

San Diego Veterans for Peace put on a protest event today along the waterfront in San Diego. We started in the grassy area on the street facing the USS Midway, which is a decommissioned aircraft carrier that is now a museum.

A group of thirty people read simultaneously the names of all of the members of our armed forces who have died in the Iraq war. We walked along the waterfront, and stopped and repeated the reading five or six times, then ended back at the Midway. Our memorial and protest was followed by a meditation for the Iraqi war dead by an interfaith peace activist group.

This is a very powerful event, and though I have participated in reading the names of our fallen many times in the course of my involvement in the peace movement, I cannot help but be moved every time. The human cost of this war, not just of our own casualties, but of all of the fallen in this war, for me cuts through the politics and the B.S.

What always gets me is the human connection, and understanding that each name is a life, a family, with all the precious mundane details that go with that. Each of these names was person who was an avid churchgoer, or a baseball player, or a knitting enthusiast, or someone's big brother. Each person is mourned by many, and matters, and is deserving of remembrance.

In this spirit, I list only a few names here, but with some details to help connect to the real human cost of this war.

Pfc. Amy A. Duerksen, died in Baghdad, Iraq, on March 11, 2006. I did a little research on this, apparently she died of a gunshot wound that she received three days previously from a non-hostile weapons discharge. The army has not provided any further details.

She was from Maryland, she loved her family and her God, and she was 19 years old.

Barbara Heald, 60, of Stamford, Conn., died January 29, 2005, in Baghdad, Iraq, when the Republic National Palace was hit by a mortar round.

She was a retired Air Force Captain, and volunteered to work in Iraq as a civilian in support of our armed forces there. She was a "ferocious knitter", and posed in front of this famous statue in Iraq with a copy of Knitter's Magazine.

Sgt. Cheyenne Willey, 36. Sgt. Willey grew up in Macomb, Illinois. He had a paper route as a young boy, that his little sister Stacy used to help him with. After high school, he moved with his family to Fremont, California, then enlisted in the army in 1995. He was very highly respected in his unit and by civilian contractors in Iraq, and was considered a key member of his reconstruction battalion. He has been recommended for a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart.

Cheyenne was killed December 23rd, 2005 by a roadside bomb.

Lance Cpl. Saeed "J.R." Jafarkhani-Torshizi Jr., 24. He was a baseball player, loved to go to the movies, and loved being in the Marine Corps.

J.R. was killed in a helicopter crash on January 27, 2005.

There are 3,052 stories like this, as of this morning, just for Americans. There are over 600,000 stories like this for Iraqis.

How many have to die?

Peace

Deceit on the Rocks

2007-01-20T23:15:00.000-08:00

When President Bush was interviewed by Jim Lehrer on the Lehrer Newshour on January 16th, I missed it. There has been so much controversy and commentary about it that I finally looked it up and watched online. Some things occurred to me as I watched and re-read the transcript, and I decided to analyze it in a slightly different way from some comments that I have seen. You may want to click on the above link first and read the interview, or watch it, before reading this post, I do get a bit detailed about some parts of it.

First, during the speech, Bush actually defined what he means by success in Iraq. I list his criteria here, for future reference. According to President Bush, success in Iraq would be measured by these benchmarks of success:

A government that functions, meaning:
It provides security for its people
It takes steps to share the oil wealth
It deals with the de-Baathification law
It encourages local elections

A Baghdad that is less violent

Reconstruction projects in place that employ Iraqis

Iraqi troops chasing down killers

al-Qaeda prevented from getting a foothold in Iraq

I find it interesting that he mentions sharing the oil wealth, but does not specify who it would be shared with.

Next I will quote, out of order, the lengthy list of lies that Bush told during the interview:

(origin of violence in Iraq)
...some of these bombings are done by al-Qaeda and their affiliates.
This statement is, on the face of it, true. It implies, however, something that is not. Once again al-Qaeda is mentioned in conjunction with Iraq, in an obvious, tired, and repetitive way, as a continued attempt to link two unrelated issues in the minds of the American people.

(consequences of failure of the Iraq war)
This is a war; part of a broader war, and that if we fail in Iraq, there is a better likelihood that the enemy comes and hurts us here.
...it would just really create a very dangerous situation for the American people in the longer run.
...if we fail in Iraq, it is likely there will be safe haven from which people will be able to launch attacks from America.
Three separate times during the interview, Bush claims that failure in Iraq specifically endangers America. This is more neo-con fear peddling, it is just not true. Failure in Iraq, which has already occurred, will have enormous short-term consequences for the Iraqis, and longer term consequences for the region. The idea that America would allow al-Qaeda safe-havens anywhere in the world, whether we are actively engaged in war or not, is just silly. The fact is, Bush created the situation that is drawing al-Qaeda to Iraq. They are there because we are there, and if we left, they would have no reason to stay.

It is likely there would be enormous clashes between radical Shia and radical Sunnis.
He implies that there are not already clashes in Iraq between these groups.

It is likely that moderate governments could be toppled, in which case, people could get a hold of oil resources.
Which moderate governments? The Saudis? The Kuwaitis? The Iranians? Who is he talking about? There is some truth here, clearly he is concerned about losing a controlling interest in world oil supplies.

(the Iraqi goverment)
...some of my decisions actually have worked, like getting rid of Saddam Hussein and helping the Iraqi government form a unity government that is based on a novel constitution for the Middle East.
There is no unity government in Iraq, it's a sectarian government.

(taking responsibility - without taking responsibility)
Bush: Part of the failure for our reaction was ourselves. I mean, we should have found troops and moved them. But part of it was that the Iraqis didn't move troops. And I take responsibility for us not moving our own troops into Baghdad -
Lehrer: Why didn't we move the troops, Mr. President?
Bush: Well, because I think the commanders there felt like it was important to make sure the Iraqis did first, or that the Iraqis made a focused, concerted effort. And they just didn't. There were supposedly six brigades committed and they sent two.
Throughout these responses, he appears to take responsibility without actually admitting mistakes of his own. He claims responsibility for not moving troops, then blames the Iraqis and his own commanders. I said in a previous blog, and I say it again: He seems to want be attempting to nobly take responsibility for the errors of others, without admitting his own mistakes. He seems to be pathologically incapable of saying that he was wrong. When directly asked by Lehrer if he felt a personal sense of failure in regards to the Iraq war, he distinctly shakes his head no.

(about General Casey)
he is also the general who felt like we needed more troops, and he's also the general that believes this is the best chance of working.
Casey has strongly recommended against more troops. Repeatedly. He reiterated those recommendations as recently as December 21st.

(about his options in Iraq)
Look, I had a choice to make, Jim, and that is - one - do what we're doing. And one could define that maybe a slow failure. Secondly, withdraw out of Baghdad and hope for the best. I would think that would be expedited failure. And thirdly is to help this Iraqi government with additional forces - help them do what they need to do, which is to provide security in Baghdad.
(then later)
One idea was just keep doing what you're doing; another idea was to pull out of Baghdad...the final option is secure the capital and at the same time chase al-Qaida into Anbar.
Bush presents these options as the only options. That is categorically false. He completely leaves unmentioned diplomatic solutions or involving neighboring countries in security solutions, or other options.

The question I'm now faced with is do I react to that (2006 being a lousy year) or do we just begin to leave, which is - some people - decent people on Capitol Hill think we ought to do. I made the decision, let's succeed; let's work for success not work for failure.

Forget what decent people on Capitol Hill think. What about what the American people think? How is looking at solutions other than military ones working for failure? He repeatedly hammers this point throughout the interview, without allowing for non-military considerations. Even the analysts of the interview seem to miss this point, granting him the basic framework of his argument, and picking it apart within that framework. The lie here comes from Bush framing this question, and its answers, in a way that leaves his solution as the apparent obvious and correct conclusion.

I've listened to the commanders.
Which ones have you listened to, Mr. President? Your actions seem to be directly contrary to the advice of your commanders.

All timetables do is embolden the enemy.
Whether timetables embolden the enemy or not, timetables would force the Iraqis to take more responsibility for their own security, or at least acknowledge that Americans were no longer going to.

I listened to a lot of folks, a lot of good, decent folks, and came up with this answer as the best way to succeed.
Which folks did you listen to, Mr. President? Who advised you that this was the best way to succeed? Dick Cheney? Condi Rice? Don Rumsfeld? Paul Wolfowitz? Or perhaps it was Lee Raymond, Heroen van der Veer and Lord Browne?

In this interview, Bush envisions the world if America does not "succeed in Iraq", as 20 years from now being a "cauldron of radicalism and extremism." He sees radical Shia & Sunni competing for power, with oil falling in the hands of radicals, which could then be used to blackmail Western Governments. He predicts the use of nucyular weapons of mass destruction. The truth is, Bush envisions the power of oil corporations extending into the indefinite future, an unlimited supply of treasure buried beneath the sands of the Middle East.

This next lie is a complex one, and it has been missed by those analyses that I have seen. Bush was criticized strongly by many about his initial response to Lehrer's question:

Why have you not, as president of the United States, asked more Americans and more American interests to sacrifice something?

As has been remarked on many times in other forums, he came back with a nonsensical comment about Americans sacrificing by watching the war on TV. This statement is only another Bushism, that once again puts his bumbling folksiness under the microscope. What bothers me more is the rest of his answer.

He goes on to say that he feels he should not raise taxes, that people should feel like their life's moving on, and puts an image in our minds of regular folks working hard to feed their kids and send them to college. This leads to his most disturbing point: this is like saying why don't you make sacrifices in the Cold War? I mean, Iraq is only a part of a larger ideological struggle. But it's a totally different kind of war, than ones we're used to.

This is his most important point. This is the big lie that the Bush administration has hoped from the beginning to get us to buy into. It's the same old neo-con fear baiting. Like the cliche of the snake-oil salesman, he just slips it in casually, again and again. It's taken for granted that we fight an ongoing war, decades in length. An "ideological struggle", that we must be prepared to fight for years. We are expected to slip on the familiar, comfortable Cold War shoes, falling into the habit of fear that some of us lived with from the time we were children doing duck and cover drills under our desks at school. If we just hang tough, and rely on good old American values, they and God will carry us through.

This Straussian bullshit has got to be exposed. The same old story about an implacable enemy dedicated to conquering our Christian values and our American ideals and our Democratic principles, an enemy dedicated to non-Christian and anti-Democratic evil that hates America. The Athiestic Communist Threat must be stopped! Umm.. Er.. The Fanatical Muslim Terrorist Threat must be stopped! I think and hope that finally people are waking up this, and maybe the neocons can be thrown out for good.

The neocons have a lot of the money, and the corporations of America back them. It's going to take a lot of work, and we have to do it one piece at a time. Today we work to stop the escalation of the war, and bring our troops home. Tomorrow we demand investigations and make the case for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. Then we take on Big Oil, Big Media, and the Carlyle Group.

President Bush truly cares about all Americans

Peace

Teeth or No Teeth

2007-01-16T22:49:00.000-08:00

The Democrats plan to implement a no-teeth resolution expressing their disapproval of Bush's escalation of the war. This resolution is expected to pass easily in the House, but a possible filibuster may block a vote in the Senate. Seven Republican Senators have so far agreed to vote with the Democrats on their "Non-binding Resolution" against the President's plan to increase troop levels on the ground so far: Gordon Smith(R-OR), Susan Collins(R-ME), Norm Coleman(R-MN), Chuck Hagel(R-NE), Olympia Snowe(R-ME), Sam Brownback(R-KS), and George Voinovich(R-OH). Now, assuming that the only defection would be Joe Lieberman(I-CT), that's 48 Dems. Add in the 7 Republicans above, and that gets 55 votes, needing 5 more to block a filibuster. Harry Reid(D-NV), the majority leader in the Senate, expects to get 4 or 5 more Republicans to break ranks, so it's going to be close.

But so what?

There are several ways to look at this, including the idea of using the resolution to force Bush into a political corner, but let's face it: Bush is doing a good enough job of that on his own. The Dems need to stand up and force the withdrawal of troops. Screw politics. Show some spine and take the risk of forcing the issue. I have no problem with the resolution per se, but I am having difficulty understanding why there is a reluctance to take real action. This war has to be stopped.

The escalation of the Iraq war began yesterday, regardless of any actions by the U.S. Congress. Troops began rolling into Iraq from Kuwait, starting with the 2nd Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division. The breakdown is as follows:

The 2nd BDE, 82nd Airborne Division, and assigned as the call forward force in Kuwait, will move into Iraq and assume a security mission there.
The 1st BDE, 34th Infantry Division, Minnesota ARNG, will be extended in its mission for up to 125 days and will redeploy not later than August 2007.
The 4th BDE, 1st Infantry Division, will deploy in February 2007 as previously announced.
Three other Army combat brigades will deploy as follows:
- The 3rd BDE, 3rd Infantry Division, will deploy in March 2007.
- The 4th Stryker BDE, 2nd Infantry Division, will deploy in April 2007.
- The 2nd BDE, 3rd Infantry Division, will deploy in May 2007.
The Marine Corps will extend two reinforced infantry battalions for approximately 60 days.
The 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable) will remain in Iraq for approximately 45 additional days.
Finally, the USS Stennis Carrier Strike Group and the 3rd Battalion, 43rd Air Defense Regiment will deploy to the region to bolster security.

Secretary Rice and King Abdullah, January 16, 2007

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice paid public court to the Saudis today, meeting with King Abdullah, and pleading with Prince Saud al-Faisal for help with Iraq. Al-Faisal expressed doubt that the Iraqis would be willing or able to do what the United States has asked them to do, and dismissively stated that their fate was "in the hands of the Iraqis themselves." The Saudis and the Kuwaitis nevertheless both came out in support of the escalation, though seemingly reluctantly.

There is continuing controversy in the press over U.S. troops working with (or under?) Iraqi units, raising concerns about command and control. The infiltration of insurgents and "terrorists" into Iraqi forces leaves some uneasy about relinquishing the authority over U.S. troops to incompetent leaders or perhaps to those with an agenda. Outgoing General Casey reports that there is no conflict, and that American troops will remain under U.S. command and control. In the field, I'm not sure how that will play. The Iraqis are insisting that they will be taking the lead, but their track record in doing that has not been so good. As usual, the Bush administration has dismissed the objections of Congress and the American people.

Cully Stimson

Torture and illegal detention apparently aren't going away any time soon. Charles D. "Cully" Stimson, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs, said only last Wednesday in an interview on C-Span that Guantanamo remains a useful asset: “It’s important during a time of war to have a place where, number one, you can take people off the battlefield and not allow them to go back to the battlefield … but also, exploit intelligence that they may possess.”

Following that, on Saturday he suggested a boycott by corporations of those law firms representing detainees at Guantanamo. "I think, quite honestly, when corporate CEO’s see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those CEO’s are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms, and I think that is going to have major play in the next few weeks. And we want to watch that play out."

Thankfully the ABA came out with a statement responding to that with an appropriate sense of outrage. The Defense Department is also already distancing themselves from his statements about the law firms. Unfortunately, they still seem to support him with regards to his earlier statement. Ironically, Scooter Libby has one of those firms representing him in his perjury case.

The rapidly deteriorating situation with Iran adds several layers of complexity to this. The recent attack on the Iranian consulate has really made the Iranians angry, and with Bush having sent a carrier task force to the region, there's already enough tension to go around without the so-called surge. I was going to say that I have grave concerns that this is going to flame up bigger than it already is, but that statement doesn't cover it. If we encroach onto Iranian territory, overtly, I don't rule out Iran invading Iraq. Then what happens?

over 600,000 Iraqis in the Iraq War
at least 34,452 Iraqis in 2006
over 100 Iraqis today
3,024 American military personnel as of today
At least 377 contractors
At least 106 Journalists

How many have to die?

Peace

I Have a Dream Speech

2007-01-14T22:55:00.000-08:00

In honor of the greatest American of the Twentieth Century

Dr. Martin Luther King
August 28, 1963

National Conference on Media Reform

2007-01-14T22:22:00.000-08:00

This last weekend, journalists and activists gathered at the National Conference on Media Reform. My friend Barbara emailed some of the details of this event to me, and I was able to watch part of it live. The most striking thing for me was this speech by Bill Moyers.

The internet is still free, and has yet to be completely dominated by Corporatism. The events of recent months have shown us how important the blogosphere is in getting out real information to the world. They have also shown us that it is impossible to rely on Big Media for accurate information, unfiltered by corporate or partisan interest. Facts are available, but not easy to find. We must fight to keep the corporations from monetizing the blogosphere, and keep the information flowing.

Information wants to be free!

Bill Moyers' address to the National Conference on Media Reform, Jan 12, 2007.

One of Two

Two of Two

Responsibility versus Apathy

2007-01-13T13:38:00.000-08:00

The escalation of the war initiated by Bush in his most recent speech is entirely unacceptable. The unrestrained arrogance of the Bush administration is clear to see. He acts now against the will of the American people, the Congress, the experts and generals, and the world. This was not always the case.

I have always been a liberal. I have always voted Democratic. I am a veteran of the United States Coast Guard, and as a military veteran, over most of my life my position on foreign policy issues often was more centrist than left. In college, I was a history major, and in my studies, the conclusions I drew were viewed through a narrow window based mostly on national interest.

I was deeply affected by the attacks of September 11, 2001. The unfocused rage I felt through the end of 2002 led to me being treated for depression, partly because I didn't know who to be angry at. In the late 1990's, I had read extensively on world religions, as a personal project, and though I don't subscribe to any particular religion, the facts that came through to me were that all religions, including Islam and Christianity, contain both universal truths, and fundamental flaws. I have never indulged myself in the intellectual sloppiness of bigotry, or prejudice, or religious intolerance, so after 9/11 I was disturbed, even through my own anger, by the reaction of hatred by many in America towards Arab-Americans or Muslims.

The thing is though, when the Iraq war started, I supported it. I bought the lies, like so many others, and my anger about the attacks on September 11th 2001 contributed to my inability to think clearly about what was happening. As time passed it became clear to me that I was being deceived, and was helped in that deception by my emotional reaction to the attack. More was revealed about the actions, and inactions, of the Bush administration, and I was forced to take a look at myself. I came to the conclusion that not only had I erred in my judgement about the right thing to do, but that my gut emotional reaction contributed to the problem. My acceptance without question of the statements of the Bush administration, through most of 2003, went along with the tacit acceptance of most Americans. That acceptance, rather than the illegal and immoral actions of Bush, is what has led to this war and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

It is our fault. It is my fault.

We know now, of course, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. We know that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Looking back at what was published, and the information that was available to me at the time, I should have known that. This war has been used not as a weapon only against Iraqis, and at least in name if not in fact, against terrorists, but against Americans. The bludgeon of the war is being used even now against our most basic civil liberties. It is being used to justify atrocities, perversely being perpetrated in the name of liberty. The use of torture by the United States in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, and elsewhere, and the defense of that use of torture by the Bush Administration, is what made me first feel shame as an American.

This is not a new phenomenon, it has happened throughout our history. Civil liberties have been under threat many times in American history, by individual presidents, by corporate interests, and by our own prejudices. The difference this time is the sustained systematic pounding away by a group of men determined to destroy the principles that our nation was founded on for their own gain.

The erosion of our civil liberties in the USA Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act, and most recently Bush's signing statement for the Postal Reform Act, should make us all gravely concerned. In addition, the president's statements and history make it clear to me that other areas of freedom and privacy have been violated, and most likely will continue to be.

The war is a symptom, it is not the problem. The destruction of Iraq, and the deaths of so many, is what has been caused by the underlying problem of apathy in America. The easy acceptance of materialism (the American Way of More Stuff) and the arrogance of Americans about the superiority of our culture, has made it easy for those interested in consolidating their hold on power to do so. The fear peddled by the Corporate media, fears of terrorism, of crime, of immigrants, and recently of our own government not only restrains us, but reinforces our apathy. More of us are waking up all the time, but many of us are still childishly averting our eyes and ears just as I did. A lot of Americans don't see why they need to get upset about a war, because they don't see it affecting them. That's why I'm in favor of bringing back the draft, at least in some form.

The time has come for bold action. The peace movement has moved up to the next level, which to me, is being accepted as a credible and important influence in American politics. The first sign of that was Harry Reid changing his position on Bush's escalation of the war after being contacted by a large number of us opposed to his original statement. The next sign may be blocking the escalation of the war by forcing Congress to acknowlege their mandate, and investigate what happened, and stop the war. If we are to achieve this kind of progress, we must push Congress hard. Letters, emails, phone calls, and continued peaceful demonstrations are essential to keep up the pressure.

We are making progress. We have momentum, and we need to push even harder because of that. This war must end. Our civil liberties must be restored. Sitting at home getting mad at the TV stopped working for me, and I had to get involved. My only regret with doing that is that I didn't do it sooner. I have so much respect for those that saw immediately what was happening, and had enough courage to get involved in protesting this thing from the start. For me, I crossed over something a while ago, and I can't go back. Corporatism (as Mussolini used to call it) is not going away any time soon. Even once we get the war stopped (which we will), and restore our civil liberties (ditto), so much work remains to be done that I for one will continue to work for peace and justice in America.

110th Congress:

1. End the war.
2. Stop the torture.
3. Protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Anything less is a deal breaker.

Peace

The Military Industrial Complex

2007-01-06T22:10:00.000-08:00

I've been doing some thinking over the last day or so, and decided to do some research. I had seen Eisenhower's farewell address fairly recently, but it is rare that you get to see the entire thing, and found this copy of it. If you have time, it's worth a look. Thanks to Barbara for her video as well (shown first), that's what put me onto this.

The more I learn about the way the corporate heirarchy in the United States interacts with the military, and with congress and the administration, the more saddened I become.

Barbara Cummings: Comment On The Upcoming 110th Congress - video powered by Metacafe

Below the video is the full text of the speech, including the introduction. The speech itself is 20 to 25 minutes. The entire video concludes with about 20 minutes of commentary, with various talking heads discussing, re-summarizing, and analyzing Eisenhower's speech. I include it because I can't find a copy of the entire speech without it. Most shorter videos are clips only, excerpting what various editors find to be important and leaving out what they don't. I feel that it's important to see the entire speech, without taking bits out of context, so here it is:

Farewell Radio and Television Address to the American People
by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, January 17, 1961.

Eisenhower farewell to the nation

Add to My Profile | More Videos

Full text of Eisenhower's Address, excluding the talking heads, follows here:

Good evening, my fellow Americans.

First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunities they have given me, over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing you, this evening.

Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.

My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.

In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among peoples and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology - global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle - with liberty at stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research - these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs - balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantages, balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable, balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between action of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. Of these, I mention two only.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known of any of my predecessors in peace time, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.

Now, this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence - economic, political, even spiritual - is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system - ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we - you and I, and our government - must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose difference, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war - as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years - I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

So, in this my last good night to you as your President, I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find somethings worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I - my fellow citizens - need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

Now on Friday noon I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so, I look forward to it. Thank you, and goodnight.

Letter from Duncan Hunter

2007-01-06T01:21:00.000-08:00

I received a rather interesting letter today, from my congressional representative, Duncan Hunter (R-CA, 52nd District). This was (I believe) in response to my electronic signature on a petition to impeach President Bush. It came on very nice stationary, with U.S. House of Representatives letterhead, and was addressed to me personally. It was actually signed by Mr. Hunter himself, in pen, rather than with a stamp or other facsimile signature.

The text of the letter, dated December 20, 2006, exactly and in full, leaving off my address information, is as follows:

Dear David:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns. I was interested to learn of your support for impeachment of President Bush. While I appreciate your position on this issue, I am confident that behind the leadership of President Bush, we have remained on the offensive in the Global War on Terrorism targeting suspected terrorist organizations at home and abroad and working to better protect our homeland and providing law enforcement and intelligence officials with the tools they need.

As Chairman of the House Armed Services, I believe victory in Iraq remains critical to our overall success in the Global War on Terrorism and the withdrawal of U.S. troops should only begin once Iraq's security and military forces achieve the necessary level of self-sufficiency. American led efforts to promote democracy in Iraq are responsible for the removal and adjudication of Saddam Hussein, the liberation of approximately 30 million people and an unprecedented series of free and fair elections. However, prematurely withdrawing U.S. military personnel from Iraq before security and military forces are capable of protecting the Iraqi people and their interest would concede victory to our adversaries and bring greater insecurity to the Middle East and the American people.

In regards to your thoughts concerning the treatment of terrorists captured and detained by the U.S, I agree with you that we need to provide basic fairness in our prosecutions. However I strongly believe it is necessary for Congress to develop a judicial process that will allow for the effective prosecution of captured terrorists and will ensure American troops and citizens are protected from harm. It is for this reason I introduced H.R. 6166, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which creates a fair judicial process that pays special attention to the rules of evidence and includes procedures used in previous military commissions and will allow the government to prosecute its case fully without compromising intelligence sources. H.R. 6166 passed the House with my support on September 27, 2006 by a vote of 253-163 and passed the Senate on September 28, 2006. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 17, 2006.

Congress has demonstrated its commitment to protecting our nation's families and communities. Rest assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind as addressing the terrorist threat remains one of our greatest priorities. Again, thank you for contacting me. If you should have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

Duncan Hunter

This is the text of the letter I will mail later today in response, dated January 6, 2007:

Dear Representative Hunter,

Thank you for your recent letter in response to my email. Your response was thorough, but I am afraid that we are in disagreement about most of the points covered in your letter. It is in fact the leadership of President Bush that is in question. In addition, I question the methods he has used, with the approval of Congress, in fighting terror and prosecuting terrorists and others.

As you are the former Chairman, and I assume are a current member, of the House Armed Services Committee, I have some difficulty in seeing how you are linking the war in Iraq to terrorism. I have studied this issue at some length. It is very clear that Saddam Hussein was an evil man, and a terrible dictator, responsible for many tens of thousands of deaths, even of his own people. Much like Hitler or Stalin, he maintained power through a tightly controlled totalitarian dictatorship, but he was at odds with fundamentalist extremists, such as the Islamic extremists that attacked our country on September 11th, 2001. Saddam Hussein, evil as he was, never threatened the security of the United States. While it is true that now there are Islamic extremists in Iraq, they are operating there because the actions of the United States gave them the opportunity to do so.

You contradict yourself when you say, in the same paragraph, that "withdrawal of U.S. troops should only begin once Iraq's security and military forces achieve the necessary level of self-sufficiency", and that "American led efforts to promote democracy in Iraq are responsible for the removal and adjudication of Saddam Hussein, the liberation of approximately 30 million people and an unprecedented series of free and fair elections."

If the Iraqi people have been liberated, and have had free and fair elections, why do they need U.S. troops to achieve self-sufficiency? If they are not self-sufficient, have they truly been liberated, or are they suffering under the occupation of a foreign power, and caught up in a civil war unleashed by that occupation?

Withdrawing our troops would remove a destabilizing factor in Iraq. I have no illusions that our exit from Iraq will be pretty. I am a veteran myself, though I served in peacetime, and I understand that when we leave, the immediate impact will be harsh, and difficult. This will be the case if we leave now, or if we wait. As long as we are there our troops will be a target for insurgents, and the Iraqis will remain reluctant to take full control of securing their nation. I know that you served in Vietnam, and your son has served in Iraq, and I honor that service, as I honor the service of all of the members of our armed forces. It is concern for them that is my chief motivation in contacting you.

You also mention H.R. 6166, the Military Commissions Act of 2006. I am familiar with this piece of legislation as well. I have strong concerns about the constitutionality of many of the provisions of the document. The suspension of Habeas Corpus, in some circumstances, is a grave step, and while I am not a constitutional lawyer, it seems to me to exceed the authority granted to Congress by the Constitution. I have read the Commissions Act in detail, and I realize that only aliens are subject to most of the provisions of the act. The provision of that act, however, that grants the President or Secretary of Defense, or their appointees, to declare anyone, even an American Citizen, an unlawful enemy combatant I find disturbing.

While I am as concerned as anyone with preventing further terrorist attacks, I feel very strongly that the prosecution of any criminals, even terrorists, is best conducted in civilian courts. Our national security is a vital thing to secure, within the limits of the Constitution and the law. As Benjamin Franklin said: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

I am including the full text of your letter to me, and this response, on my blog:
http://sdpeaceguyblogger.blogspot.com/

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

Sincerely,

David L. Wiley
Formerly RM2 Wiley, USCG

That's all for now, just thought that I would share that with everyone...

Peace

3,006 today. How many have to die?

110 and rolling

2007-01-05T19:51:00.000-08:00

Ok 110th Congress, are you ready for the big time?
Semper Conruptus

I am encouraged on a couple of levels, and discouraged on others. The House of Representatives is clearly moving and doing quite a bit of work, early. I am glad that two things have already passed quickly:

House Resolution 35 - Oversight at last
This should enable the congress to pursue oversight of the administration, which is in my view one of their primary jobs.

House Resolution 6 - Bye Bye K Street (and a summary)
This brings long overdue transparency and disclosure to the lobbyist issue, and imposes sharp limitations on gifts and travel. Interestingly there is an exemption for travel to colleges and universities. We'll see how long it takes the lobbyists to start providing monetary incentives to colleges and universities so that members of congress traveling there will have perks to take advantage of.

There are several objectives including the two above which the Democrats have pledged to address in the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress: Lobbyist reform, 9/11 Commission recommendations, the minimum wage, allowing negotiated lower prices for drugs, stem cell research, college loan interest cut, oil industry subsidy cuts, social security.

These are all good things, but something seems to be missing. Hmm... Somehow there seems to have been a large issue that has been overlooked, or at least it's not in this 100 hour list.

Iraq.

There is no proposal to cut funding for the war in Iraq. There is no proposal to mandate troop withdrawal from Iraq. There are no hearings scheduled to get on record the things that happened that got us stuck in Iraq.

Fuck!! (sorry - I get worked up)

At least Pelosi and Reid had the spine to send this letter objecting to the increase of troop levels that Monkey-boy is planning:

January 5, 2007

President George W. Bush
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

The start of the new Congress brings us opportunities to work together on the critical issues confronting our country. No issue is more important than finding an end to the war in Iraq. December was the deadliest month of the war in over two years, pushing U.S. fatality figures over the 3,000 mark.

The American people demonstrated in the November elections that they don’t believe your current Iraq policy will lead to success and that we need a change in direction for the sake of our troops and the Iraqi people. We understand that you are completing your post-election consultations on Iraq and are preparing to make a major address on your Iraq strategy to the American people next week.

Clearly this address presents you with another opportunity to make a long overdue course correction. Despite the fact that our troops have been pushed to the breaking point and, in many cases, have already served multiple tours in Iraq, news reports suggest that you believe the solution to the civil war in Iraq is to require additional sacrifices from our troops and are therefore prepared to proceed with a substantial U.S. troop increase.

Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq.

In a recent appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General John Abizaid, our top commander for Iraq and the region, said the following when asked about whether he thought more troops would contribute to our chances for success in Iraq:

“I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.”

Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement . . In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq.

Our troops and the American people have already sacrificed a great deal for the future of Iraq. After nearly four years of combat, tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, and over $300 billion dollars, it is time to bring the war to a close. We, therefore, strongly encourage you to reject any plans that call for our getting our troops any deeper into Iraq. We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success.

We appreciate you taking these views into consideration.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

Speaker Nancy Pelosi

It just infuriates me that none of these... people have any real guts. Financial reform and ethical reform and oversight are all important. These undoubtedly contributed to the Democratic victory in November. The congressional leadership, however, does not seem to understand that the overriding concern of the American people at this point is getting the hell out of Iraq.

Now, I admit I am biased. I'm a peace activist. So let's look at some poll numbers.

A recent CBS poll shows that of those polled, 72% of adult Americans disapprove of the way Bush is handling the war. The same poll shows that 76% believe that Bush has no clear plan to deal with Iraq, and that 82% believe that the Democrats don't either.

71% of Iraqis want us to leave, based on a poll in September 2006.

Finally, The Military Times did a poll of active duty military last month, and published the numbers on December 29th. 35% (a little over 1/3) approves of Bush's handling of the war. 42% disapprove. In 2004, 83% of active duty personnel thought that success in Iraq is likely. That figure has dropped to 50%.

That's a pretty wide selection. The first and third of those, clearly shows what the will of the people is.

Georgie's skating on some thin ice. He's shuffling his personnel again, trying to show that he's doing something, and getting rid of the folks that disagree with him and putting in yes-men, like he always does.

Representative Maxine Waters said that "The proposed changes in personnel are, in effect, like rearranging the chairs on the Titanic."

I think that for the most part I agree with her, but I wonder what else he's hiding.

In closing, here the entire speech that Pelosi gave when she was formally elected Speaker the other day. It is historic, as she is the first woman Speaker in U.S. History, and the speech is a positive one. I myself am less hopeful, but am very willing to be proved wrong.

Peace

Part the first

Part the second

Part the third

Part the last

Sacrifice

2007-01-04T18:00:00.000-08:00

Keith Olberman

Three Names Three Deaths

2006-12-30T22:14:00.000-08:00

Gerald Ford, James Brown and Saddam Hussein
Brandon Read, J.R. Spears, and John Sullivan (ed. 01-03-07)

Deaths come in threes. That's the myth, and this time it's reality.

The first group of three names, everybody knows. All three did things that they were proud of, and things that they were ashamed of. They are all dead. Two are being honored in death, one is scorned in death, at least in the United States. Enough is being written about them.

The second group of three names are not so well known, the third name of that group, is in fact, not yet known. The third name was revealed today (ed. 01-03-07)

Specialist Brandon M. Read
United States Army Reserve

Brandon was killed by an IED September 6, 2004 near Qayyarah, south of Mosul.
He was from Greeneville Tenessee, he was 21 years old, and he was a computer/internet enthusiast. He helped to get his high school's website started. Once he graduated he joined his dad in the Army Reserve.

He had volunteered to take the more dangerous gunner position on the return trip during a convoy mission, even though he had already served in that post on the first leg, and was originally supposed to be the driver on the way back. He never made it back.

He was the 1,000th member of the United States Armed Forces to be killed in Iraq.

Lance Corporal Jonathan R. Spears
United States Marine Corps

J.R. was killed by hostile small arms fire in Ramadi, Anbar Province, on October 23, 2005.

He was from Molino, Florida, and he was a football player in high school. He wanted to join the Marine Corps so much that he lost over 60 pounds to be able to do so. His best friend, Chris Smith, also a Marine, was able to be at his funeral, and was somehow able to stay at attention, while simultaneously holding J.R.'s mother's hand. His whole home town came to his funeral.

J.R. loved his country, the Marine Corps, and his family, which included his parents, and his two sisters, Jennifer and Jessica.

He was the 2,000th member of the United States Armed Forces to be killed in Iraq.

This evening, as I write this, the toll of U.S. casualties stands at 2,998. I know that tomorrow, or the day after at the latest, there will be a 3000th American servicemember killed. I wish that I did not know this. I wish that an American family was not going to have New Year's ruined for them for all time. I wish that all the men and women in Iraq, many of them so young, could come home without some of them having to die.

Sgt. John M. Sullivan, 22, of Hixon, Tenn., died Dec. 30 in Baghdad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle while on combat patrol. I was wrong in my estimate, Sgt. Sullivan was killed the same day I wrote the original post. I would like to again extend my deepest sympathy and respect to his family and loved ones. (ed. 01-03-07)

The fact that each of these men's death marks a milestone in the Iraq war is tragic. These soldier's deaths are not more or less significant than the deaths of any other soldier in this war. Each death shatters a family, ruins a Christmas, devastates real human beings, cuts short a human life. The fact that I am listing these men here, along with the circumstances of their deaths, and some details of their lives, is in no way an attempt to diminish their sacrifice, or to dishonor them. I am deeply sorry for their families loss. I hope that listing them here, as the heroes that they are, in some small way shows honor to them and their families, and conveys my deep respect, and shared sorrow.

There are some other milestones that we have passed recently. 25,000 total U.S. Casualties. Iraqis, well, that's anybody's guess. Bush said 30,000 a year ago, but estimates go much higher.

The above figure is counting only those killed in Iraq, whether in combat or by other means, and those wounded in combat. If you count those who have fallen ill, been wounded or injured by any means, as well as those killed, the number is over 50,000. (ed. 01/07/07)

Monday, January 1st, starting at 4:00pm, there will be a candlelight vigil here in San Diego to honor our fallen in this war. It will be a peaceful, non-violent vigil, and it will be held at Balboa Park, in the grassy area on the Park side, opposite Balboa Naval Hospital.

Imagine

John Lennon

Peace

Military increases and the draft

2006-12-23T14:15:00.000-08:00

In recent days, the Bush administration has put forward two ideas.

The first idea is to surge troop strength in Iraq by 20,000 to 30,000 troops, a full division, in order to stabilize the region and help train the Iraqi forces & police to take over the security of the country.

This plan is really frightening. He is clinging to his original vision of the Iraq conflict like a drowning rat, even against the advice of all but his inner circle of advisors. Secretary Condoleeza Rice said on Friday, December 22nd 2006, about Iraq that "once it emerges as a country that is a stabilising factor, you will have a very different kind of Middle East." I find it personally incredible that the Secretary of State of the United States is still singing this tired neo-con theme song.

The fact is that we can't continue to support the war with our current force strength in Iraq, and nobody, including the former Secretary of State, and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell seems to understand how we would be able to credibly increase our force strength there without breaking the back of the army.

The fact is that increasing our current force would do nothing to stabilize the region, and would only escalate the conflict to a level of violence, and American casualties, which the American people have not seen since the Vietnam War.

Even Harry Reid, the Democratic Majority Leader in the Senate, initially made a statement supporting the increase. Fortunately, largely due to backlash from people across the U.S., including some peace activists locally, he has backed off that statement.

The morale of both the Army and the Marine Corps is plummeting, because many of them either have realized, or are beginning to, that they are being asked to die for a lie. Bush's incapacity to recognize reality, even now, still stuns me.

It's clear that the man just won't give up, and is so committed to his original vision, that nothing, not even the abandonment of his most ardent supporters, will change his mind.
(thanks to Jon for the video link)

The second proposal that Bush is putting forward, is to increase the overall size of both the Army and the Marine Corps. How he is intending to do this, with the recruitment trouble that the military has had recently, I don't know. Maybe he will start loosening up enlistment standards, or just have military recruiters start lying to potential recruits. Oh wait, that's right. Never mind.
(thanks to Dave for the lying recruiter link)

Or they could bring back the draft. Also on Friday, the U.S. Selective Service announced a comprehensive test of the military draft systems, starting in 2009.

Now, recently, there's been quite a bit of controversy about the draft. People talk about it, they get pissed off about it, they support it for political reasons, they oppose it for political reasons. Some people are in support of it based on their principles, others oppose it based on their principles. Many times this comes about for different reasons.

Newt Gingrich has recently implied he supports bringing back the draft. (see below) Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel supports bringing back the draft. Pelosi says she doesn't support it. The Bush administration is against it:
"The president's position has not changed," said Trey Bohn, a spokesman for the White House. "He supports an all-volunteer military, and the administration is not considering reinstating the draft."

There are several arguments here, and there is no consensus whatsoever. Conservatives tend to be in support of the draft, if they are, because they feel we need it to fight the Global War on Terror. Mr. Gingrich, for example, has called it "World War III", and has implied that a war economy and reinstating the draft would be a part of his vision for the future.

Gingrich's ideas about the use of American military force are as dangerous as his ideas about the suppression of free speech.

On the other side of the aisle, Charlie Rangel believes that there is already an implicit draft in this country. By that he means that for a large segment of our population, the opportunities to improve yourself are limited. Many people in our country come from disadvantaged backgrounds, and have very few choices after high school, sometimes coming down to choosing between the Army and WalMart.

I agree with his point, that a formal draft, without deferments, would level the playing field. This might force people who have more economic opportunity to see the war in a different light. What if young people from middle-class backgrounds had to face the possiblity of compulsory service, war, and death? Would they, or their parents, be so quick to support the idea of a war?

I also feel that the idea of some sort of compulsory service, regardless of the nature of that service, is a good idea. There is a difference between involuntary servitude, as some have termed it, and the idea of compulsory service.

Many nations have mandatory military service, or other civil service, as a required part of adult life. Switzerland, for example, requires two years of service of every adult. Service to one's community, state, or nation is a valuable experience that unites people from different backgrounds, in a common cause. Compulsory service need not be military in nature, a draft such as Congressman Rangel suggests could include the option to work in the Peace Corps, or do work in the community. His proposal includes those ideas, and those who object to war, if his ideas are adopted in toto, would have the opportunity to choose from several options.

"Having our young people commit themselves to a couple years in service of this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals -- and, at the end of that, to provide some educational benefits -- it's the best thing for our young people and the best thing for our country."

Congressman Charles Rangel on Face the Nation, November 19, 2006

Jim Nicholson, the current Secretary for Veteran's Affairs, recently said that "society would benefit" if the draft was reinstituted, but then quickly backed off his statement. Interestingly, Secretary Nicholson's original position seems not too far from Congressman Rangel's.

In my own experience, I spent two years in the California Conservation Corps as a young man(hard work, low pay, miserable conditions!). That experience of service is something that I will value for my entire life. Following that, I enlisted in the military, and my experiences there also shaped my attitudes, my work ethic, and my ideas about the world and the people in it. Of course, in my case, I volunteered both times, even though at least in part that was due to no money, no job, and no prospects.

Some of the statements made from the left in recent months have been clumsy attempts to capture some of the reality about military life in a soundbite. Kerry's botched joke, for example, was true, but does not (and was not intended to) completely describe reality. In addition to those that are in the military due to economic disadvantages, are those that have volunteered because of their personal ideals. My own military service was a combination of the two sides of this coin.

All that said, the draft today is not politically feasible. The emotional content, pro and con, of the idea of the draft is so overwhelming that most people can't keep their minds on what might really happen if it were brought back.

The military is a mixed bag of people. It already is a cross-section of our society, and it is wrong to attempt to label people, or indulge stereotypes. That said, today's circumstances are different from the time when I was active duty. I am a peace-time veteran, and my experiences in the military are different from those of combat veterans.

To say I am proud of the quality job that our young men and women are doing overall, in Iraq, would be an understatement. To say I am ashamed and disappointed with the quality of the job that the military and civilian leadership is doing overall, especially with regards to the Iraq war, would be equally understated.

The ideas of some members of the officer corps are quite good, and the fearlessness of many of them in stating those ideas is heartening. Most often in retirement is when general officers become the most outspoken, but sometimes active duty generals are not afraid to speak out, or to do their duty and tell the truth, as in the case of General John Abizaid.

The level of dissent is historical in scope, and is most often in direct contradiction of the civilian leadership. The fact that Bush is now disregarding the advice of his "Commanders on the ground" publicly, is a sign of how far the deterioration has come.

The number of conscientious objectors has been increasing steadily since early in the war. I have no doubt it will continue to rise.

The discontent with the course of the Iraq War will continue to grow. The disillusionment of the American people with the Bush Administration, over the repeated lies, scandals, cronyism and opportunistic greed will spread. We will take our country back, peacefully, within the rule of law. The tide has turned in public opinion, but how many of our men and women in uniform will have to die first, is the question in my mind.

2,964 so far.

Peace

New congress, death, and monkey-boy

2006-12-17T19:56:00.000-08:00

2,946 today.

This interim period before the swearing in of the 110th congress is maddening. It is only a few more weeks, I know, until January 4th when the new congess takes its seats.

I am heartened by some things, and disappointed by some things, which are all happening at once.

First, the scrutiny by the house promises to be intense. Congressman Waxman and the Ethics Committee are looming over the Haliburton contracts, the White House, and the Pentagon like a gathering cloud, about to let loose a downpour of subpeonas.

On the other hand, John Conyers with the Judiciary Committee appear to be taking a more cautious approach. Pelosi and Conyers both have stated that impeachment is "off the table", and apparently they are not even going to issue any subpoenas, to start with. This is disappointing, but I think I understand what's going on. Pelosi and Conyers have both stated that there will be rigorous oversight from now on, and it would seem like the worst sort of self-serving politics for her to press for impeachment right from the start, since she is next in line for the presidency if Bush and Cheney both go.

The case for impeachment is already strong, but the administration's ability to "catapult the propaganda" under the direction of Karl Rove, who unfortunately seems to be acting as the equivalent of Joseph Goebbels (the Propaganda Minister for the Third Reich) in our government, albeit with the official title of Deputy White House Chief of Staff for Strategic Planning. As Congressman John Moss (D-CA) said on April 30, 1973, leading up to the Watergate investigations, "...before we even suggest impeachment, we must have the most uncontroverted evidence."

This means to me that while there will be no articles of impeachment approved by the 110th Congress in its first hours or days, the notion of impeachment is for now, "tabled", or put aside until evidence begins to mount. Soon enough it will become clear, not only to those of us who have been paying attention for some time now, but to the American people in general, the depth of impropriety, scandal, and opportunism that lie at the heart of the Bush administration.

The day is coming when Monkey-boy

and Darth Sidious

(i dunno - you decide)

will both be marched out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in shackles and orange jumpsuits. This has to be done by the book, completely in accordance with the law, or we are no better than they are.

In the meantime, our responsibility is to continue to bring pressure to bear on the administration and congress, and to continue to make sure that the war is present in the minds of the American people. 2007 is a crucial year.

2,946 American servicepeople killed
22,057 American servicepeople wounded

That's over 25,000 U.S. Casualties

The above figure is counting only those killed in Iraq, whether in combat or by other means, and those wounded in combat. If you count those who have fallen ill, been wounded or injured by any means, as well as those killed, the number is over 50,000. (ed. 01/07/07)

The total confirmed deaths for Iraqis is over 25,000, while one estimate puts the median (middle range) estimate of Iraqis killed as over 650,000. There are, in addition, over 1.5 Million refugees.

How many have to die?

Peace

The Beginning of the End

2006-12-10T21:38:00.000-08:00

This is a video of Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, broadcast earlier this year, the day after the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the Warner National Defense Act of 2007 was signed. I was surfing around, looking for some politically oriented video, and this one came up in about the first 10 seconds. The name of the segment, aptly, is The Beginning of the End.

It's so powerful, I'm sharing it.

Non-violence, fearless dissent, and hard work

2006-12-08T17:56:00.000-08:00

During a conversation at work the other day, a woman that I work with said something that bothered me a little bit at the time, and has grown on my mind since.

I was talking about my military service, in the U.S. Coast Guard, and some of my experiences while I was active duty. I was telling a sea story about a really hairy search & rescue op that happened in 1988 while I was stationed in the Bay Area as a radioman (yes, we saved the guy). She was interested, asked some intelligent questions about things, and we were pretty much done with the topic. I mentioned that I was now working as a peace activist. She rolled her eyes, seemed disappointed, and said, "I wish it were that simple."

The conversation was cut short because of work, and I never had a chance to respond to her statement. At first I didn't know what she meant. Simple? What about being a peace activist or working to end the war is simple? After considering it, I have come to realize that she really doesn't understand what peace activists do, and doesn't understand how much thought and consideration is put into things.

How does mainstream America view the peace movement? This is an important question, especially since we in the movement have been frustrated for so long by the seeming inability of many people to even acknowledge (with more than a bumpersticker) that there is a problem. Does the average American see us as a group of Pollyanna daydreamers, singing songs and hoping that the sun will just come out tomorrow? Do people really think that we don't understand that there are no simple solutions to this problem, or at least, no simple solutions that would not also exponentially increase the bloodshed?

Long hours spent just trying to get one more person to really think about the cost of war, or see past the fog of materialism, is not easy. The Arlington West memorial tomorrow alone will be several hours of hard work, as we will be setting up and taking down almost 2,500 markers representing American fallen. The figure of 2,500 is correct, unfortunately we don't have the resources or people to continue to put up a cross, star, or crescent for each death anymore, our trailer only holds that many. As of this morning, the count was 2,922.

The Iraq Study Group Report by The Baker-Hamilton Commission was released recently, and there still seem to be no easy answers. The report rehashes suggestions that have been proposed by progressives, and others, for the last year or two. It comes as no surprise that Bush has already rejected (or at least snorted at) two of the key proposals: engaging Iran and Syria in dialogue, and troop withdrawals.

Nancy Pelosi, the new Speaker of The House for the 110th Congress has already pledged to not cut funding for Iraq. Her motives are understandable, and she does promise oversight of funding, which is a welcome change, but an outright promise seems to me to be premature. She spun her response to be not cutting off funding for "the troops" but clearly it is our responsibility as peace activists to keep up the pressure. Hard.

Progressive members of the house such as Dennis Kucinich, who should now get at least some media attention, could force at least the discussion of peace initiatives, including the Department of Peace. A local group working towards the Department of Peace is unafraid of approaching local conservative politicians, and confronting them with their message.

Peace work is not simple, and it is not easy. The principles of non-violence and fearless dissent are central to the message of peace. These principles are extraordinarily difficult to uphold.

Speaking truth to power is difficult, and scary. I have personally passed on an opportunity to do this myself, when I felt overwhelmed. For a while it felt to me like nothing we were doing was making any difference, and I failed to follow through on some commitments I had made to support the peace movement. I've stopped beating myself up over it, but am committed to following through on things in the future, and not taking on more than I can handle.

I have lost my temper many times over the injustices and excesses perpetrated by the Bush administration. I have yet to become violent, and it is important that that never happen. Any kind of violence or even implied violence must be avoided if we are to maintain the integrity of the peace movement.

Just stuff on my mind, all for now...

Peace

Peace Resource Page

2006-12-07T23:17:00.000-08:00

Hello all,

This is a foundational post, and could be considered a building block, so to speak. This page will be continually updated with downloadable document resources that may be useful to the activist community.

United States Constitution

USA Patriot Act

Military Commissions Act of 2006

John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
I know, I know, it's huge. Pay special attention to section 1076.

Talon Report
(documents obtained by the ACLU on the surveillance of
Veterans For Peace by Homeland Security)

Iraq Study Group Report
(Baker/Hamilton Commission report)

U.S. House of Representatives, 110th Congress

U.S. Senate, 110th Congress

Congressman Dennis Kucinich's proposal to end the war by cutting funding

Below is all the video and audio of the events in Washington January 27th and 29th, 2007.

For a summary of the event, please read my post: Ripples in the Pond

Here also is a link to my webshots site, which includes very many stills taken throughout the event.

Peace

Audio
Cirino's recordings:
Recording 1
Recording 2

We Will Not Be Silent (Claudia)

Vigil at Rayburn (Claudia)

Courtyard at Rayburn & Vigil (Paul)

Capitol Police Arrests Part 1 (Cirino)

Capitol Police Arrests Part 2 (Cirino)

Lobby Day videos

Planning in the Rayburn Cafeteria (Claudia)

March & Rally

Peace March past the Supreme Court (Claudia)

Crowd shot at Peace Rally A (Barry)

Crowd shot at Peace Rally B (Barry)

Crowd shot at Peace Rally C (Barry)

Crowd shot at Peace Rally D (Barry)

Veterans For Peace - Upcoming events

2006-12-05T23:02:00.000-08:00

Hello all,

I just came back from a Veterans For Peace meeting, and once again I am energized. There is so much committment from these folks, and such true compassion for our men and women in harm's way.

The annual elections were held, and the slate of officers for the next year is ready to take the helm.

Several things are coming up of importance:

Arlington West
The next event is on December 9th. This is in Oceanside either just north of or just south of the pier, depending on foot traffic, and how crowded the beach is. We really need volunteers for this, especially veterans, to interact with the public, and especially with active duty people.

The following are a few pictures from the last Arlington West held in Oceanside:

It is important to emphasize that this is a non-political event, supporting our troops active in Iraq, and honoring those that have fallen.

Truth-telling in a Time of War: A Call to Civic Courage
with guest speaker Daniel Ellsberg
This is not a VFP event, but is sponsored by the Peace and Democracy Action Group.
This will be Saturday, January 27, 2007 at 7:30pm, at the First Unitarian Universalist Church in Hillcrest. Please click the link for more details.

Candelight Vigil
San Diego Coalition for Peace and Justice (SDCPJ) is planning a candlelight vigil near Balboa Naval Hospital when the toll of those of those Americans killed in Iraq reaches 3000. This will be soon, probably late December or early January. Please click the link above for a map to the location.

San Diego Veterans For Peace is encouraging as many of our members as possible to attend. In the meeting tonight it was emphasized that a strong presence by our group will strongly demonstrate respect for our troops. In addition, the Navy Hospital Corpsmen working out of Balboa will be reassured by a visible presence of Veterans For Peace, and counter-protest is sometimes diffused if we are seen as a large part of any gathering.

We will be setting up a very small version of Arlington West, with thirty markers, each marker representing 100 people. What was finally decided on was 28 crosses, 1 star & 1 crescent, to fairly represent the fallen.

It has been mentioned that there is a possibility of counter-protest, and it is important to remember our Statement Of Purpose:

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

We, having dutifully served our nation, do hereby affirm our greater responsibility to serve the cause of world peace. To this end we will work, with others

(a) Toward increasing public awareness of the costs of war.
(b) To restrain our government from intervening, overtly and covertly, in the internal affairs of other nations
(c) To end the arms race and to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons
(d) To seek justice for veterans and victims of war
(e) To abolish war as an instrument of national policy.

To achieve these goals, members of Veterans For Peace pledge to use non-violent means and to maintain an organization that is both democratic and open with the understanding that all members are trusted to act in the best interests of the group for the larger purpose of world peace.

We urge all people who share this vision to join us.

That's all for now. My next entry is planned (for now at least) to be more generally political, and will look at the makeup of the House of Representatives for the 110th Congress.

Peace

First Attempt

2006-11-29T22:56:00.000-08:00

Hello everyone...

This is my first blog at the new site. I am going to be keeping this one strictly on political topics, and on the peace movement. In addition I will be specializing to some degree on topics of interest to Veterans For Peace. This will be both nationally, and to particular projects and events sponsored by or participated in by our local chapter here in San Diego, The Hugh Thompson Memorial Chapter, or Chapter 91 of Veterans For Peace. That said, in no way is this blog affiliated with Veterans For Peace, and the opinions expressed here are mine alone, and are not necessarily endorsed by Veterans For Peace.

If you are a friend, or have a casual interest in some of my off the wall poetry or my personal stuff, that site will remain active. If you are interested in my previous posts, please go to my old blog.

To start with, for this blog I will repost the video of Lt Watada's speech at the National Convention of Veterans For Peace in Seattle, Washington, in August of 2006.

Part One:

Part Two:

This video I find personally very moving. This young man's principles and his courage in sticking to them should inspire us all.

That's all for now, this post is a bridge from old to new, so I thought I would just repost the essential content from the last of the old blog, and move on from here.

Peace