. . . because much of the content relates both to Washington, D.C., and "outside the beltway" -- the heartland, specifically Iowa -- and because after going from Iowa to Washington via Texas and California I subsequently returned, From DC 2 Iowa.
The Public's Right to be Fully and Timely Informed (bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
A little over three years ago the UICCU credit union leadership suffered, and lost, an unpleasant battle with its membership. See "Optiva; Optiva Voted Down," March 1, 2007. It thought it could unilaterally change the name from "University of Iowa Community Credit Union" to "Optiva" without bothering to fully inform, and involve, the credit union's membership. It found out otherwise.
What a difference three years makes!
The "Dear Member" letter I got the other day from UICCU President and CEO Jeff Disterhoft, along with a two-page, single-spaced "Q&A: UICCU Member Support Center" briefing, is about as full an explanation for a decision as one can find outside of what the old U.S. Supreme Court used to provide the public during its better days.
Yeah, it looks like another unilateral done deal. And, yes, at $25-30 million for this "Support Center," my guess is that's ballpark $500 from every member. (That's on the assumption that "building cost" includes the cost of land; otherwise it will be more.) There hasn't been, and won't be, a membership vote on this substantial expense undertaken by management. There's a promise to use "local contractors," but no mention of local workers ("local contractors" sometimes hire cheaper labor from out of town) or a "project labor agreement" (providing for union-level pay, even if the contractor chooses to use non-union labor). And the letter arrives at a time when a disproportionate number of members are out of town and may mistakenly pitch it as junk mail when they return. Nor is there any mention of what could be another controversial one, if the rumor is true: UICCU's purchase of another credit union.
But as full disclosure and transparency go, this letter and "Q&A" are about as good as it gets: "Why are we building this?" "How much will the building cost?" "Why do we need 25 acres of land for a 100,000 square foot facility?" "How will the UICCU keep Members notified of the progress?" are four examples of the 15 questions answered.
Moreover, there are six public meetings scheduled -- and at times such that virtually all members who want to can attend at least one. There is a human with a name, phone number, and email address one can contact with questions; and there will be updates in the members' newsletter and online at the credit union's Website.
And, not incidentally, the professed rationale for this expensive construction project, and its location, seem to make sense. That always helps with something like this (and seemed to be absent with Optiva).
But the purpose of this blog entry is not just to praise Disterhoft and one of the nation's most successful credit unions.
It's to contrast it with another local decision, one that impacts the public generally, and is not being handled with the same commitment to openness, public participation, transparency, and logical rationale.
Many of the institutional CEOs I've dealt with, when asked what they want, respond, "No surprises." Good news or bad, they want to know about it, and as soon before it's going to happen as possible.
The public is entitled to no less.
I've been impressed with what seems to me a much more common practice now than 30 years ago: informing the customer ahead of time -- whether by a doctor or dentist, or an auto mechanic -- what's about to happen, how and why.
Unfortunately, the practice has not been widely adopted by public officials.
Case in point: the apparent done deal on the ICCSD's sale of its very valuable downtown location/property/building for its central administrative offices ("CAO") to the University of Iowa. Rob Daniel, "District OKs office sale to UI for $4.5M,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 28, 2010.
There are four, count 'em four, categories of public institutions -- with their supporting taxpayers -- involved in (or left out of, as it happens) this decision.
The County Board of Supervisors has long looked to this property in connection with its possible expansion (or replacement) of the current County jail. This public body is supported by County taxpayers.
The City Council of Iowa City, along with the downtown business community, has talked of coordinated planning of the area south of Burlington Street (where the CAO is located). The Council is supported by City taxpayers.
The University of Iowa -- Iowa City's "800-pound gorilla" that takes land wherever it pleases, and has eminent domain power if it can't otherwise destroy family neighborhoods and the downtown area -- is funded, at least still in part, by Iowa's taxpayers generally.
Finally, there is the School District, supported by many of the same taxpayers through property and sales taxes designated for the schools.
Even responsible for-profit corporations feel some obligation to take the feelings of local residents into account -- whether they legally have to or not.
There are more issues here than I care to write or you care to read about.
But here are a couple.
The University is apparently, as has all too often been the case in the past, refusing to say why it wants the property or what it will do with it -- let alone how those desires and uses relate to what it may have in mind for ten, twenty or thirty years from now, that it also has no intention of letting any of us know.
Not incidentally, it also has it within its power to help the County but refuses to do so (by letting it have the little land required to expand the jail where it is).
The School District (so far as I now know; I may be wrong) has not indicated precisely where it plans to move its administrative functions or what it is going to do with the money from the sale. The same parents who tend to go unrepresented in other District decisions (remember boundaries?) may well be left out of this decision, too. No District Board member, or administrator, is lacking a personal automobile (or at least family car they can use) to travel to meetings at the CAO. That is not true for all of our students' parents. The CAO, at its present location, is a three-block walk from the central, downtown bus stop for all bus lines. Will a CEO at another location be, could it possibly be, equally accessible elsewhere within the District?
It's especially disturbing to read that these four public bodies have not even fully communicated among themselves regarding this decision.
But we, the public, are also involved -- big time -- in this sale. It is, after all, our money these four public bodies are using, not the personal funds of our elected and appointed officials.
We deserve better treatment. We deserve "No Surprises."
At a minimum, we deserve the degree of sensitivity and openness the UICCU credit union has given its members regarding its proposed new construction project.
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Dessert for Johnson County Fair -- July 30 & 31 (bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
The incredibly talented bundle of energy called Janet Schlapkohl, and her Combined Efforts Theater troupe, are about to burst on the Eastern Iowa theater scene once again this Friday and Saturday evenings (July 30 & 31, 2010).
It's the world premier of Janet's latest original play, "Love at the County Fair." This may be the best yet from this writing, producing, directing member of the University of Iowa's MFA playwriting program and her string of successful, sold-out productions. (Tickets for this one are still available as of this morning. Call 319-354-3369 for reservations.)
It's the county fair season in Iowa. The Johnson County Fair, on the fairgrounds south of Iowa City, opened yesterday. It's well worth attending before it closes Friday.
But what a wonderful encore Combined Efforts Theater offers us to the Johnson County Fair, like a creative, light, but intriguing dessert after a gourmet meal, that causes one to both smile and reflect.
As Combined Efforts' Website describes the play, "Here is truly a love story for every generation, as well as a rivalry between the owners of the towns’ two grocery stores, Monty’s and Kaplet’s. Add to that a Renaissance group turned boy band, rival stage mothers and their talented daughters, a lemonade swilling police chief, a former children’s show star and his stuffed raccoon, yodelers, hog callers, a Goth girl, singing, dancing, a pie baking competition, and much more." The combination -- and the ending -- make for a wonderful Iowa summer's evening of theater for the whole family.
The charm of the performance is increased, as always with Combined Efforts Theater, with the fact that the cast and crew includes both students and adults with and without special needs.
For all the details, pictures from a rehearsal, quotes and pictures from prior shows, and directions to the theater (appropriately for this production at an Iowa City farm), check out the Website, http://www.combinedefforts.org.
[Full disclosure: Combined Efforts Theater, and this production, include some family members of the blog author.] _______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
In the "Why Are We in Afghanistan?" blog entry, linked above, I wrote about an Amy Goodman "Democracy Now!" program I had just watched:
There is also a clip from Robert McNamera, explaining what was wrong with our analysis of Vietnam as a place for "war" -- insights that are almost perfectly applicable to Iraq and Afghanistan.
I offered President Johnson a similar perspective regarding our Vietnam catastrophe -- but before rather than after that war. While the fate that my message produced was neither as severe nor public as what General McChrystal has recently experienced (nor was my confidential report as ad hominem or public as McChrystal's), I always believed it did have something to do with LBJ's deciding that his young Maritime Administrator, handling sealift to Vietnam, would make a really terrific FCC Commissioner.
And I then went on to quote from the August 31, 2009, blog entry, also linked above:
The top thinkers in the military, many of whom do make their way to the top of their service, or the Joint Chiefs' staff, are well educated, bright, analytical and rational.
When left to their own independent judgment and opinions they are the ones likely to ask questions like those I [ask].
What, exactly, is it you are trying to do in this country? How are our national interests involved? In what ways do you think a military presence could be helpful in reaching that goal (as distinguished from, e.g., Peace Corps presence and building infrastructure; cultural exchanges; or bringing their best students to our universities)? How would you describe that military mission? With what metrics would you measure our military's progress? How many troops will it take to accomplish that mission? How long will it take? What is your basis for thinking the American people, and their elected representatives, will support the cost in human life and taxes over that time? (Support for the Afghan war has now dropped below 50%.) What support is there in the international community for this action? Does that support include financial support and troops? Once in, how do we get out; that is, what is our "exit strategy"? On the assumption the military mission produces the outcome desired, why is it reasonable to assume that progress will be sustained after we leave?
Note what General McChrystal is said to be talking about. Our military efforts "have not made their lives better;" security must be provided by locals "but their army will not be ready to do that for three years and it will take much longer for the police;" and a jobs program would be more effective than continuing to shoot Afghans ("60% of the problem would go away if they could be found jobs").
The bumper sticker says it all: "War is Not the Answer." Otherwise put, in more words than can fit on a bumper sticker, there are some places, times and circumstances in which war is simply not a feasible strategy. Afghanistan is one of those places; the last nine years have been one of those times. In such times, places and circumstances, "Whatever is the question, war is not the answer."
My son, Sherman, brought The Guardian story to my attention. And my son, Gregory, in this context reminded me of the concluding line in one of my favorite movies, "War Games." (As he emailed: "What!!!!??? So after years of analysis, and super computers playing war games, we've finally arrived at an answer? And the answer is: 'There is no military solution.'")
["WarGames is a 1983 American thriller film written by Lawrence Lasker and Walter F. Parkes and directed by John Badham. The film starred Matthew Broderick in his second major film role, and featured Ally Sheedy, Dabney Coleman, John Wood, and Barry Corbin." "WarGames," wikipedia.com. Amazon has the DVD; as presumably would Netflix.]
As you've just seen, if you watched that concluding clip, the premise of the film is that a computer genius has created software that enables the military to "take the human out of the loop" -- leaving it to a computer to decide when to launch missiles against the Soviet Union. A young hacker manages to get into the program and starts the computer down a road leading to World War III. Ultimately the program's creator and the kid are able to save us all, by forcing the computer to play tic-tac-toe, and thus to learn, as the computer-generated voice ultimately observes:
"Strange game. The only winning move is not to play."
That's Afghanistan. A strange game. Because our only winning move would have been "not to play," to have kept our military out of there from the beginning. In that place, under those conditions, at this time, war never was the answer. Because, as the British and Russians long ago discovered, and at least some in the Obama Administration are now, at long last, acknowledging: there is "no military solution." _______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Corporate Risk Assessment and Inevitable Disaster (bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Sat next to a business consultant on a recent flight. Got to talking about Massey and BP. His contention: It's all just about risk assessment. However conscious and precise we may be about the process (whether we're driving a car or drilling miles beneath the ocean's surface), it goes something like this: What are the potential rewards from our risky behavior? What are those risks? How serious would it be if the worst occurred? What is the likelihood it will occur? (Perception of risk -- or more often mis-perception -- is another matter, as when someone fears flying (despite the relatively slight risk) but continues smoking (despite its almost inevitable risks).) Anyone in business is under enormous pressure to both increase profits and decrease costs; in other words to gradually assume ever increasing risks of harm -- to employees, customers, the environment, or the global economy -- until the inevitable disaster occurs.
Goldman Sachs. "Goldman Sachs has agreed to pay $550 million to settle federal claims that it misled investors in a subprime mortgage product as the housing market began to collapse . . .." Notwithstanding the payment, "Goldman did not formally admit to the S.E.C.’s allegations . . .." Now, how credible is that stance? You don't admit to any wrongdoing, but you pay the $550 million fine anyway? Even if you earned over $13 billion, $550 million is a little more than one normally pays to settle a nuisance suit. Moreover, Goldman Sachs "agreed to a judicial order barring it from committing intentional fraud in the future . . .." What a concession from a Wall Street firm! That really stings, and should substantially cut into their future profits. Wow, agreeing to forgo the ability to engage in "intentional fraud." Sewell Chan and Louise Story, "S.E.C. Settling Its Complaints With Goldman,"New York Times, January 16, 2010, p. A1.
When grief or anger become seemingly unbearable, we sometimes redirect it into humor. So it is with Harry Shearer's catchy, bouncy, "Mr. Goldman and Mr. Sachs" ("spinning gold out of flax, Mr. Goldman and Mr. Sachs"). Give it a listen; available from Amazon and iTunes.
Massey Coal. It's now come to light that Massey Coal (in whose mine 29 miners died last April) has deliberately applied its risk assessment analysis to miners' safety.
An NPR News investigation has documented a dangerous and potentially illegal act at the Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia two months before a massive April explosion killed 29 mine workers.
On Feb. 13, an electrician deliberately disabled a methane gas monitor on a continuous mining machine because the monitor repeatedly shut down the machine.
Three witnesses say the electrician was ordered by a mine supervisor to "bridge" the automatic shutoff mechanism in the monitor.
Methane monitors are mounted on the massive, 30-foot-long continuous miners because explosive gas can collect in pockets near the roofs of mines. Methane can be released as the machine cuts into rock and coal. The spinning carbide teeth that do the cutting send sparks flying when they cut into rock. The sparks and the gas are an explosive mix, so the methane monitor is designed to signal a warning and automatically shut down the machine when gas approaches dangerous concentrations.
There was a risk. But it would result in greater production -- and profits. A worst case scenario was possible, but not inevitable. Sometimes they got away with it. This time they didn't.
BP. BP didn't get away with its cost-saving risk either. By now, everyone's familiar with BP's risk assessment process. The prior blog entries on that one are linked at the top of this blog entry. That company has so often weighted potential cost savings over risks to worker safety and environmental disaster that it amasses hundreds of safety violations (including the Artic spill and Texas City) when other oil companies have less than a handful.
GlaxoSmithKline's Avandia (rosiglitazone). Public Citizen's Health Research Group reports,
3.1 million prescriptions [for Avandia] were filled in 2008. But Avandia is associated with heart failure, heart attacks, liver toxicity, bone fractures, low red blood cell count and macular (retinal) edema with vision loss.
Public Citizen petitioned the FDA to revise the labeling for Avandia due to multiple safety issues in 2000. In 2007 a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine associated the drug with a 43 percent increase in the risk of heart attacks.
As an indication of the ties between the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry, as well as the complexities of risk assessment, an FDA advisory panel recently voted 20 to 12 to recommend that GlaxoSmithKline should be permitted to continue to profit from the millions of pills. A vote of 20-12 on such a death risk reminds me of my days on the seven-person FCC, when we would vote 4 to 3 to send a colleague a get-well card. Bear in mind, this same FDA committee, by a vote of 21 to 4, agreed not only that Avandia carries a risk of death from heart attack, but that the risk is much higher from Avandia than from alternative medicines that could be used instead. Matthew Perrone, "FDA Panel Votes to Keep Avandia On the Market," AP/MSNBC, July 14, 2010.
Have you seen the latest commercial for Avandia? The list of side effects goes on seemingly forever. I don't think a diabetic should "ask your doctor if Avandia is right for you," I think if a doctor recommends it diabetics should "ask yourself if your doctor is right for you."
Other examples. These are only the most recent examples. There are hundreds of others. A couple that spring immediately to mind are Bhopal (Union Carbide chemical spill; 500,000 exposed, 15,000 killed) and Three Mile Island (partial core meltdown of Babcock & Wilcox nuclear reactor).
That the U.S. electric utilities chose to save money by managing the nation's electric grid through the Internet, rather than a more secure system, is a monumental calamity just waiting to happen. Siobahn Gorman, "Electricity Grid in U.S. Penetrated by Spies,"Wall Street Journal, April 8, 2009, ("Cyberspies have penetrated the U.S. electrical grid and left behind software programs that could be used to disrupt the system, according to current and former national-security officials.").
As for "Leaders Prey on the Fearful & Naive" slug at the bottom of their billboard, I'd suggest the TP folks take a look in the mirror, and a second look at those they follow on radio and TV, and as speakers at their rallies.
I won't write at length about the TP's choice and characterization of Hitler and Lenin. Obviously, they have been chosen as characters to despise, in the Republican/TP's efforts to do everything they can to make Obama fail (as they have openly acknowledged). Never mind that if he fails, America fails.
Frankly, each of the disasters noted above have involved not socialism -- government ownership of means of production -- but a form of fascism, fascist corporatism, or more simply put, political corruption, the domination of political and regulatory institutions by large corporations. "Agency capture," to a lesser or greater degree, was a factor in each of the noted disasters.
Indeed, if only Obama were a socialist we would have long since clawed our way out of the global economic collapse brought on by Goldman Sachs and others. When 80 percent of our economy is driven by consumer spending, unemployment (including that which is not reported) runs closer to 20 than 10 percent, and consumers are, not irrationally, saving rather than spending, you can't create an economic turn-around by giving money to corporate executives and calling it a "jobs program."
Darkening consumer confidence and plunging prices combined with a generally dismal outlook to dampen hopes for a quick economic recovery. . . . "Consumers are facing three major hurdles," Art Hogan, chief market strategist at Jefferies & Co., said in an interview. "They are paying down their debt, their houses are not worth as much as they were two years ago and they're staring down the barrel of 10 percent unemployment." . . . Taken together, the week's economic data suggest that a global recovery will be staggered and sluggish in getting off the ground. Consumers -- the engine of the U.S. economy -- are catching few breaks.
Businesses won't provide additional employment until they see a reason to increse production. There's no reason to increase production unless consumers are going to spend. Consumers aren't going to spend if they're concerned they, too, may soon be unemployed.
"Trickle down" never works, but especially not at this time. What we need is trickle up.
If Obama were a socialist he would have created a federal, employer-of-last-resort, jobs program that would have immediately (FDR's programs were in place in a month) put everyone on a payroll. Give the unemployed a job, the confidence they won't be fired, and the money that goes with it, and they'll use the money to buy stuff they need, not increase their savings accounts. Their purchases will require increased production; increased production will increase private sector employment. Gradually those on the federal payroll will be picked up by private employers.
Now that's a real jobs program. Recession reversed; global economic collapse averted. Corporations profiting from their business sense, not their political dollars -- and our taxpayer bailouts of the wealthy. See generally, "Unemployment Answer is Jobs Not Bailouts," February 6, 2010.
What the TPers ought to get angry about (and, in fairness, to some extent do) is a "capitalism" in which successful businesses keep all of their profits, and unsuccessful businesses pass their losses on to the taxpayer. "Heads I win, tails you lose."
"Socialism" is the Interstate highway system, public schools, libraries, museums, local police and fire protection, the military, and a national, state and local system of parks. I kind of like that socialism, and feel that it often provides me a greater return on my investment of taxes than what I sometimes end up with from the capitalists.
How ironic that the TPers would choose "socialist" as one of their favorite pejoratives for Obama, when he is, apparently, one of the few Americans who appears to be even more frightened of the word than they are. _______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Hear Its Echos In the Streets Of That Half of the World's Population
Who Have Less Than 1% of the World's Wealth (bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
"When all else fails, read the manual."
It's good advice when dealing with mechanical or electronics problems -- or corporate-government oppression.
In this case, and on this day, "the manual" is our Declaration of Independence.
NPR on-air personalities read it aloud over the air each year about this time. I read it silently, as my own personal reminder. And for my source I go to the online transcript provided by the folks who are paid to watch over the 234-year-old original for us, the U.S. National Archives & Records Administration.
The NARA describes it as one of our "Charters of Freedom." But it is more than an historic, archival document. It is as timely as today's news, from the Taliban's demands we get out of their country before talks begin, to the hundreds protesting the G20 agenda in Toronto last week, to the anger of our domestic Tea Party crowd and those suffering from the government-corporate abuse of the Gulf of Mexico (Minerals Management Service and BP).
It's a good time to re-read the entire document, linked above, but I'm just going to excerpt some passages that I believe have the greatest currency. As you read them just substitute for "the King of Great Britain" and his abuses, not those of any single individual, but the impact on humanity, especially that least able to defend itself, of the oppressive global-corporate-government-military complex. For what oppresses the world's people today goes well beyond any single nation's government -- as the G20, and its pro-corporate agenda starkly symbolize for us -- and is therefore all the more difficult even to grasp, let alone do something about.
As you read, think about what the BBC and other independent, other-than-American, journalists report as the complaints of those in the streets of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Palestine, and at least 50 other countries. See if you can feel even just a small part of what they feel. See if you can hear the echos of the drafters of our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights in the chants of the mobs in their streets, in the cries of mothers with starving children, in the anguish of the survivors who mourn the innocent civilians killed on their way to a wedding -- or a funeral for those killed earlier in the week. And think about the Congress, the institution that threw off our oppressors 234 years ago, and has now become a major part of our domestic problems.
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. . . .
[W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them [the People] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, . . .. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, . . .. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. . . . He has obstructed the Administration of Justice . . .. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. . . . He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us . . .. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity . . .. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. . . .
If you had difficulty with that exercise, here's a little help from Maude Barlow, head of the "Council of Canadians," Canada's largest public advocacy organization. Her remarks to the thousands gathered in Toronto's Massey Hall, as a part of the protest of the G20 agenda, were reported by Amy Goodman on "Democracy Now!," July 2: "Maude Barlow: 'The World Has Divided Into Rich and Poor as at No Time in History."
Here are excerpts from her remarks:
On the eve of this G-20 gathering, let’s look at a few facts.
Fact, the world has divided into rich and poor as at no time in our history. The richest 2% own more than half the household wealth in the world. The richest 10% hold 85% of total global assets and the bottom half of humanity owns less than 1% of the wealth in the world. The three richest men in the world have more money than the poorest 48 countries.
Fact, while those responsible for the 2008 global financial crisis were bailed out and even rewarded by the G-20 government’s gathering here, the International Labor Organization tells us that in 2009, 34 million people were added to the global unemployed, swelling those ranks to 239 million, the highest ever recorded. Another 200 million are at risk in precarious jobs and the World Bank tells us that at the end of 2010, another 64 million will have lost their jobs. By 2030, more than half the population of the megacities of the Global South will be slumdwellers with no access to education, health care, water, or sanitation.
Fact, global climate change is rapidly advancing, claiming at least 300,000 lives and $125 billion in damages every year. Called the silent crisis, climate change is melting glaciers, eroding soil, causing freak and increasingly wild storms, displacing untold millions from rural communities to live in desperate poverty in peri-urban centers. Almost every victim lives in the Global South in communities not responsible for greenhouse gas emissions and not represented here at the summit. . . .
The global mining industry sucks up . . . 800 trillion liters [of water] which it also leaves behind as poison and fully one-third of global water withdrawals are now used to produce biofuels, enough water to feed the world.
Nearly three billion people on our planet do not have running water within a kilometer of their home and every eight seconds, somewhere in our world, a child is dying of waterborne disease. The global water crisis is getting steadily worse with reports of countries from India to Pakistan to Yemen facing depletion. The World Bank says that by 2030, demand for water will outstrip supply by 40%. This may sound just like a statistic, but the suffering behind that is absolutely unspeakable.
Fact, knowing there will not be enough food and water for all in the near future, wealthy countries and global investment pension and hedge funds are buying up land and water, fields and forests in the Global South, creating a new wave of invasive colonialism that will have huge geopolitical ramifications. Rich countries faced by food shortages have already bought up an area in Africa alone more than twice the size of the United Kingdom.
Now I don’t think I exaggerate if I say that our world has never faced a greater set of threats and issues than it does today.
So what are the twenty leaders who have gathered here, some already here and the others coming in tonight, what are they going to talk about over the next two days? By the way, their summit costs . . . $2 billion when it’s finished, and the annual budget to run the United Nations is $1.9 billion. I assure you, they are not going to tackle the above issues in any serious way.
The declarations have already been drafted, the failures already spun.
Instead, this global royalty who have more in common with one another than they do with their own citizens . . . are here really to advance the issues and interest of their class . . . to advance the status quo that serves the interest of the elite in their own countries and the business community or the B-20, the new term, a community that will get private and privileged access to advance their free market solutions to these eager leaders.
The agenda is more of the bad medicine that made the world sick in the first place. Environmental deregulation, unbridled financial speculation, unlimited growth, unregulated free trade, relentless resource exploitation, tax cuts for the wealthy, cuts to Social Security and a war on working people. In other words, savage capitalism.
Amy Goodman concluded her report of Barlow's remarks: "Three thousand people packed into the Toronto event. This was at the same time the G8 and then the G20 met. Between 900 and 1,000 people are believed to have been arrested, the largest mass arrest in Canadian history. Among them, many journalists. More than a billion dollars, it’s believed, were spent on so-called security, the most expensive security event in Canadian history."
To end this on a little happier, and more optimistic note, there's music -- music is at the core of most peoples' movements, and here's an example just brought to me that also makes reference to the past. First, the lyrics from the talented Steve Earle's song, "Christmas in Washington," followed by a YouTube of him singing it in 2008. (A search will bring you a number of YouTubes of Joan Baez singing it.)
Christmas In Washington”
It's Christmastime in Washington The Democrats rehearsed Gettin' into gear for four more years Things not gettin' worse The Republicans drink whiskey neat And thanked their lucky stars They said, 'He cannot seek another term They'll be no more FDRs' I sat home in Tennessee Staring at the screen With an uneasy feeling in my chest And I'm wonderin' what it means
Chorus: So come back Woody Guthrie Come back to us now Tear your eyes from paradise And rise again somehow If you run into Jesus Maybe he can help you out Come back Woody Guthrie to us now
I followed in your footsteps once Back in my travelin' days Somewhere I failed to find your trail Now I'm stumblin' through the haze But there's killers on the highway now And a man can't get around So I sold my soul for wheels that roll Now I'm stuck here in this town
Chorus
There's foxes in the hen house Cows out in the corn The unions have been busted Their proud red banners torn To listen to the radio You'd think that all was well But you and me and Cisco know It's going straight to hell
So come back, Emma Goldman Rise up, old Joe Hill The barracades are goin' up They cannot break our will Come back to us, Malcolm X And Martin Luther King We're marching into Selma As the bells of freedom ring
So enjoy the hot dogs and fireworks, and the day off on July 5, but don't forget to read the Declaration of Independence again sometime before Tuesday. And remember, "The Declaration of Independence: It's not just for history class anymore." _______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
. . . and how do we get out? (bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
There are some things I think you and I need to reflect upon regarding our role in Afghanistan.
It's July 1 in Iowa, and July 2 where I am, addressing policies other than war. But I've just taken a "Democracy Now!" (Amy Goodman) break, thanks to the wonders of a tiny computer, an Ethernet cable, and the global Internet.
Her July 1 show (which you can find at the link, above) is a review of Afghanistan. And bringing that show to your attention is my purpose in breaking silence on this blog. (The absence of entries -- which will continue until my return -- has been occasioned by heavier than usual obligations, and shorter deadlines on other writing projects, than usual.)
So the following paragraph, an item from her opening headlines for that show, while not the topic of this blog entry, provides an explanation for why I think her daily, hour-long program is always an important part of your news budget -- and especially this one.
Study: Media Stopped Calling Waterboarding "Torture" Following Its Disclosure as Routine U.S. Practice
A new study says the U.S. corporate media drastically altered its use of the word torture after its practice by the U.S. became widely exposed under the Bush administration. Researchers at Harvard University found newspapers almost uniformly described waterboarding as torture dating back to the 1930s. But when it was revealed as a common tactic approved under President Bush, the same newspapers stopped using the word torture almost entirely. Whereas the New York Times had previously characterized waterboarding as torture in 81.5% of articles, from 2002 to 2008 it characterized waterboarding as torture in just 1.4 percent of articles.
Now I don't think it's a good practice for any of us, regardless of our political/ideological orientation, to limit our news and opinion sources to those most likely to re-enforce our prejudices. I wouldn't suggest anyone limit their knowledge of the world to what Amy Goodman provides. The six daily papers I examine, as well as other sources, are almost exclusively what that brief story describes as "U.S. corporate media." I look to the official line from whitehouse.gov, and BP. And I add to them dips into the unabashedly right wing sources as well.
But I also watch Amy Goodman, for news and interviews I can get almost nowhere else (including PBS/NPR). And I devote a Website to links for a random sampling of what I call "Global Media." Because, in my judgment and experience, there does seem to be disproportionate pro-government/establishment/corporate emphasis in the "U.S. corporate media."
The paragraph quoted above, regarding the media's flip-flop handling of waterboarding as torture, simply reminded me of that all over again.
Headlines of interviews from the July 1 show include:
•Michael Hastings of Rolling Stone on the Story that Brought Down Gen. McChrystal and Exposed Widening Disputes Behind the U.S. Debacle in Afghanistan
•Rep. John Conyers and Out of Afghanistan Caucus Oppose Obama Admin’s $33B Escalation of Afghan War
•Fmr. Marine, State Dept. Official Matthew Hoh is First U.S. Official to Resign Over Afghan War
All involve facts and insights at least some of which will probably be new to you.
There is also a clip from Robert McNamera, explaining what was wrong with our analysis of Vietnam as a place for "war" -- insights that are almost perfectly applicable to Iraq and Afghanistan.
I offered President Johnson a similar perspective regarding our Vietnam catastrophe -- but before rather than after that war. While the fate that my message produced was neither as severe nor public as what General McChrystal has recently experienced (nor was my confidential report as ad hominem or public as McChrystal's), I always believed it did have something to do with LBJ's deciding that his young Maritime Administrator, handling sealift to Vietnam, would make a really terrific FCC Commissioner.
The top thinkers in the military, many of whom do make their way to the top of their service, or the Joint Chiefs' staff, are well educated, bright, analytical and rational.
When left to their own independent judgment and opinions they are the ones likely to ask questions like those I outlined above.
What, exactly, is it you are trying to do in this country? How are our national interests involved? In what ways do you think a military presence could be helpful in reaching that goal (as distinguished from, e.g., Peace Corps presence and building infrastructure; cultural exchanges; or bringing their best students to our universities)? How would you describe that military mission? With what metrics would you measure our military's progress? How many troops will it take to accomplish that mission? How long will it take? What is your basis for thinking the American people, and their elected representatives, will support the cost in human life and taxes over that time? (Support for the Afghan war has now dropped below 50%.) What support is there in the international community for this action? Does that support include financial support and troops? Once in, how do we get out; that is, what is our "exit strategy"? On the assumption the military mission produces the outcome desired, why is it reasonable to assume that progress will be sustained after we leave?
Note what General McChrystal is said to be talking about. Our military efforts "have not made their lives better;" security must be provided by locals "but their army will not be ready to do that for three years and it will take much longer for the police;" and a jobs program would be more effective than continuing to shoot Afghans ("60% of the problem would go away if they could be found jobs").
Having extolled the benefits of exposure to views other than your own, above, as you may have guessed by now, you will find more from the guests interviewed on Amy Goodman's July 1 program that is consistent, than that which contradicts, my own view of our Afghanistan efforts.
But, then, a little support for one's instincts from time to time isn't all bad either.
Watch, or just listen, to the July 1 "Democracy Now!" show now, while you're thinking about it. You'll thank me that you did.
Oh, and how do we get out? That's Chairman John Conyers' contribution to the program.
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
