LET’S DO MORE FOR OUR VETERANS THAN RISE FOR THE NATIONAL ANTHEM

I never served in the military. I do not like things militarily jingoistic, for I think they lead to unthinking and dangerous patriotism. I also think our country far too readily worships things military and violent, in spite of the fact that something on the order of 95% of us have never had anything to do with the military.

I’ve never understood how people take pride in “us,” when speaking of things military, never having served in combat. I have never been comfortable attaching myself to things I deserve no credit for, which stems not from virtue, but decent embarrassment over being associated with accomplishments for which I deserve no credit. Recently, for example, in my new hometown of Nashville, people have sprouted all kinds of “We Are Nashville” banners, buttons and t-shirts to show esprit de corps and pride in our working together to help this city recover after the terrible damage it suffered in the recent deluge. I won’t display such items because I’ve done nothing to help the city recover and shan’t pretend that I have done so.

Defense contractors use military patriotism to maximize profits, the Pentagon uses it to procure cannon fodder and politicians use it to advance their careers. I will never like things military, because of the terrible ends for which it has been used, but I do believe, although some friends even more cynical than I say it is untrue, that the vast majority of soldiers, marines, airmen (and women) and sailors serve honorably with a level of courage and sense of duty that I not only fall short of, but am genuinely incapable of fathoming.

My respect for them is ineffably immense, but I have yet to find any reason to waver in my belief that they are in most - if not all - instances, serving, in Bob Dylan’s words, as “only a pawn in their game.” (I am acutely cognizant of the unique nature of World War II and the incomprehensibly altruistic sacrifice so many thousands in the military made to protect our country in that terrible time, but even that war was fraught with moral ambiguities and none of our military actions since have approached the level of threat America faced in 1941.)

It is not my intention to debate the worthiness of our current engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, for if you still believe that we are fighting those wars to keep America safe or preserve and/or spread democracy, nothing I can say will divest you of that gullible notion. I can, however, as someone not infected with the germ of patriotism, suggest that the current abuse of servicepersons is a terrible shame, for which the Pentagon, the government at large and President Obama should be ashamed.

The Pentagon has kept combat personnel on active duty long past their periods of enlistment through its stop-loss policy or “back door draft,” the equipment with which they fought most of the Iraqi war was wanting (bad helmets, inferior protective vests, far from state of the art vehicles, resulting in thousands of deaths from IEDs, and many more inexcusable failures to protect our servicepersons as best we could ), the pay stinks, the assignments are often unwinnable and untenable, and the medical care, counseling and vocational assistance for returning veterans is unconscionably lacking. In short, our government’s treatment of the people we ask to fight these nasty little wars for us (“us” usually being corporations making obscene profits from conflict) is morally criminal and one of the worst disgraces in this country’s long history of disgraceful conduct.

Given the realities surrounding our current foreign policies, it is eminently reasonable to venerate the soldiers who fight our wars and despise the government that sends them to do so. I watch with amazement the free ride our President, the neo-liberal, gets from the media and the Democrats for his “truth-challenged” record on ending the war in Iraq. Obama never said he would end the Afghan war, but he certainly let his cleverly nuanced campaign speeches lead many to believe he would do so, as he waged his “peace” campaign for the presidency. All of us now know that Obama has escalated the Afghan war several times, and as for his stated “goal of starting to withdraw forces from (that) country in July 2011," how can people be expected to believe that, given the President’s track record on ending the Iraqi conflict?

While campaigning for the presidency, Obama promised to end the war in Iraq within sixteen months of taking office. That morphed into a more specific promise to remove all combat troops sixteen months after taking office (which would be May 20, 2010), which has further morphed into a promise to remove combat troops by the end of August, 2010, but a few days ago, on May 13, the Pentagon announced that circumstances on the ground have created a “national emergency” in Iraq which will require a further delay in beginning to remove U.S. combat troops (which could prove complicating, since Obama and Malaki long ago drew up an unconstitutional status of forces agreement that requires all U.S. troops to leave Iraq by the end of 2011).

We will not leave either Iraq or Afghanistan in the foreseeable future and the president will not quit issuing veracity-challenged statements to the contrary, but if we are going to continue Obama’s dirty little wars well into the future (and they are now, especially Afghanistan, “his” dirty little wars), instead of getting teary-eyed each time fast-moving military jets fly over star-spangled bannered football games, perhaps we might write our president strongly worded suggestions that he quit making our remarkable combat servicepersons do two, three and even four tours of duty, and that he provide them adequate medical treatment and insurance, along with psychological and vocational counseling when they return home from fighting these disgraceful wars our corporate state insists upon waging ad infinitum. It’s the least we can do for these people who valorously serve our country in the belief they are protecting our freedoms, even if they are, in fact, serving the profit margins of corporate America.

P.S. OBAMA SEEKS ANOTHER $33 BILLION SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR HIS WAR IN AFGHANISTAN

The following was brought to my attention after I posted the above essay this morning:

In the next few days, Congress will consider a $33 billion supplemental request for funding Obama’s war in Afghanistan. A supplemental bill, or “emergency appropriation” is not considered part of the pentagon budget for the fiscal year in question, but is rather gravy on top of the roughly seven hundred billion dollar defense budget for this year.

Further, of this $33 billion supplemental request, that is expected to pass in both houses of Congress easily, approximately $1.2 billion of the money will actually be used to directly make our troops safer. More Dylan: “How many times can a man turn his head and pretend that he just doesn’t see? The answer my friend is blowin’ in the wind, the answer is blowin’ in the wind.”

Our public schools are physically crumbling, bridges are falling down, highways are terribly rutted, 48 million Americans have no health insurance, millions of American families can’t pay the bills, billion gallon lagoons of chemical toxins, coal sludge and livestock manure lie festering and spreading disease with no plans to clean them up, unemployment rates are astronomical, and our elected representatives (the whores pimped out to us by the corporations that own them) are going to promptly approve another $33 billion expenditure of your and my money to fund a war intended to eradicate Al Quieta, which no longer has any meaningful presence in Afghanistan and the Taliban, whom we helped empower and aren’t all that much worse than the war lord cronies of Hamid Karzai, the Afghan prime minister we put in power, who – in spite of his visit to Obama last week – is still asking us to leave his country.

Is there something wrong with this picture? So long as we do not organize meaningful protest and opposition to these obscene insanities, they will continue unabated and one can’t help but wonder if this is the government three hundred plus thousand of our relatives died to protect in European forests and on Pacific beaches some sixty-five years ago.

The moral of this story is: If these realities disturb you … DO SOMETHING!!!!!!!

THE OBSCENITY OF MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL MINING AND POLITICS IN TENNESSEE

Reading editorials in support of the coal industry, almost always written by its own representatives, one would think that mountaintop removal mining (MRM) is an environmentally sound, even beneficial way to get at coal seams, one that improves public health. The aesthetic harm, ecosystemic devastation, extreme public health hazards of heavy metal displacement, and havoc wreaked upon wildlife are either down-played, overlooked, or disingenuously denied. Their editorials neglect to mention things like the twenty times higher than recognized as safe level of selenium around Zeb Mountain, in Campbell County, Zeb having been subjected to MRM, although coal spokespersons claim MRM does not occur in Tennessee, and those mining Zeb have been cited for many violations of environmental regulations, but go on with their legally dubious extraction with – to date –virtual impunity.

The state legislature, for the third straight year, procedurally quashed the Tennessee Scenic Vistas Protection Act (TSVPA), without letting it get out of committee for a vote. But then, Big Coal and its financial beneficiaries in government (at both state and federal levels) haven’t evidenced any zealous desire to subject environmental policy to democratic votes.

Some state legislators, however, bravely sponsored and/or advocated passage of TSVPA, and deserve public acknowledgement. The bill’s main Senate advocates this session were prime sponsor, Doug Jackson, co-sponsors, Tim Barnes and Eric Stewart, and supporter Charlotte Banks. In the House, advocates included prime sponsor, Michael McDonald, co-sponsors Willie “Butch” Borchert and Brenda Gilmore, and supporter George Fraley. Senator Bill Ketron and Rep. Bill Dunn also played key roles in promoting the bill.

One would be remiss to not also express gratitude to the Lindquist Environmental Appalachian Fellowship (LEAF), under the leadership of Dawn Coppock, Pat Hudson and Pat Chastain, for the remarkable work it has done in bringing this issue into public consciousness and, equally importantly, to the attention of the politicians at Legislative Plaza. This organization, a self-described Christian fellowship whose faith leads them to take action for Tennessee’s environment, has shown that religious activism can be politically progressive and efficacious.

Opponents of mountaintop removal mining are confident that a modicum of investigative due diligence will lead interested parties to the conclusion that this process is an environmental catastrophe, a public health disaster, a socio-economic boon to Big Coal and an egregious quality of life detriment to Appalachian citizens living near mine sites, as well as a moral obscenity to everyone called to exercise benign and protective stewardship over creation.

Why is it that a monolithic front to defeat TSVPA was employed with political ferocity by those arguing that the Responsible Mining Act of 2009 is more than sufficient to protect Tennessee from the ravages of mountaintop removal mining? As to the veracity of their claim, ask the citizens of the heavily mined regions in East Tennessee how that’s working out, rather than trusting the words of Big Coal spokespersons.

On April 1st, the EPA passed the most stringent curbs on MRM activities to date, but EPA’s enforcement record on regulations promulgated pursuant to the Clean Water Act (and other environmental laws) has been spotty at best when it comes to MRM activities. Beyond that, the new regulations have some loopholes and all administrative regulations are subject to change or reversal by subsequent administrations. For these reasons, those who oppose MRM should work for passage of two bills currently in Congress, the Clean Water Protection Act and the Appalachian Restoration Act (sponsored by our own Senator Lamar Alexander and Ben Cardin of Maryland), each of which would dramatically curb, if not eliminate MRM.

Neither the Tennessee legislature nor the U.S. Congress will act decisively to end MRM unless public opposition to this ecological obscenity reaches critical mass. Until it does, we are failing to fulfill our obligations to the land, our children and future generations. There is no such thing as restoration of a mountain, for one can only be preserved, not restored. How prophetic were the words of Isaiah, who said, “The earth is utterly broken, the earth is torn asunder, the earth is violently shaken.” It is time for more environmental justice and less corporate avarice.

MOVEMENT DOESN'T LIE, MR. PRESIDENT

I am in a bit of a quandary. In my last blog, I acceded to the fair but firm suggestion of trusted friends that perhaps – however accurate my critical substantive assessments of the Obama Administration may be – the style of my reportage is too strident, thus turning off people before they can hear the (what I believe to be) validity of my critiques, and posted a “kinder and gentler” blog, conceding my overly strident past, but asking that the President’s defenders be open to a reality that flies in the face of their unconditional approval of Mr. Obama.

Now I am faced with the difficulty of trying to emphatically condemn yet another recent anti-environmental decision by Mr. Obama’s Agriculture Department, without sounding harsh and strident, but succeeding in bringing it to the attention of remarkably uncritical supporters of almost all the President says and does.

A dear friend once told me that “movement doesn’t lie.” I didn’t understand, so he explained that when confronted with a contradiction between what one says and what one does, go with what s/he does, because a person’s truth is shown in his or her behavior, not pronouncements. From the moment I heard that line, I have taken it to heart and I feel very strongly that in the case of President Obama, it is imperative to remember “movement doesn’t lie.”

This week, Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture, under which department resides the U.S. Forest Service, and an employee of Mr. Obama, who makes decisions at the behest and under the “veto” power of the President, approved commercial logging and the necessary road-building that attends such activity within Alaska’s Tongass National Forest. This forest is a seventeen million acre pristine temperate rainforest that is the habitat of several endangered species, home to members of native Alaskan indian tribes, and an ecological treasure we are blessed to have in the United States. During his campaign for the White House, Mr. Obama promised that he would preserve the “roadless rule,” that essentially says pristine National Forests, meaning those that have not been previously developed, logged, or had roads built in them, will not be subject to logging and road-building.

(In pursuit of intellectual honesty, I hasten to add that Salazar, in an environmentally sound move, also repealed Bush Administration approval of logging in certain national forests in Oregon that are home to the endangered and once notorious spotted owl, but admitted to doing so because he was sure the permits would not withstand legal challenges under the Endangered Species Act.)

Once again, however, Mr. Obama has gone back on a campaign promise. (The previously strident journalist in me would have said he lied.) Once more, Mr. Obama has allowed his Interior Department to act in a strongly anti-environmental way, for the benefit of corporate giants, a practice that no longer surprises anyone who follows the President’s “movement” in regard to ecological matters.

What then, is one to do? Not mention this? Act as if it’s an aberrant incident? Or worst of all, go along with what passes for conventional wisdom among the vast majority of Obama supporters who will claim that it’s a small negative blip on the screen of vast good he is doing? Precisely where is this vast good the President is doing? It escapes me. Relatively few will ever know of this latest betrayal of the environment, let alone what a “roadless rule” is, but they will have seen the President’s superb speech to the NAACP this week, solidifying his reputation among liberals as what I used to admittedly bitterly call The Savior. Talk is cheap, movement doesn't lie.

Barack Obama is not the great progressive leader people apparently need him to be. We are suffering a dangerous case of politico-cultural dissonance, the minimum price of which is yet another unaffordable delay in placing this country on the truly progressive path it must steer in order to survive, if not flourish, in this century.

I close by repeating the good faith modest proposal I made in my last blog: I shall keep my critiques of Mr. Obama substantive, rather than ad hominem, if you, dear friends, will please, please judge this president on the basis of what he is and does, not what you want him to be.

UNDER ADVICE OF FRIENDS...

In both Matthew and Luke, we find well know variations on the following theme: Ask and Ye Shall Receive. It should not have surprised me then, that in asking liberal Democrats to “let me have it” in response to my last blog, which was highly critical of Obama, I was soundly hammered. The criticisms were of two basic types: Notably feeble attempts to defend those actions of Obama that I had criticized, which I ignored, and serious suggestions that perhaps anger and/or frustration were clouding both my perspective and efficacy. Some of my closest and most trusted friends were among the latter genre of critics, forcing me to seriously reconsider both my writing style and the accuracy of my perceptions.

As for the accuracy of my perceptions, after lengthy deliberation, I have concluded that while I am angry when it comes to my disappointment with Obama, my criticisms of his actions thus far in office, are indeed legitimate and accurate, however much said criticisms may offend liberal Democrats. Regarding my vitriolic style, however, perhaps I am losing “street cred” with the liberals, “turning them off” as it were, to the point where, so I am told, some old friends have suggested I’m no longer the liberal I used to be. If they mean that I’ve become conservative, it’s a silly notion, but if they mean that I’ve moved unrealistically far to the left, I can only respond that one ought, in my meager opinion, speak with an idealistic fervor, while being willing to compromise in action, when it comes to politics, except when supposedly necessary compromises in turn compromise one’s moral decency.

I confess to wondering how much friends and liberals are turned off by the admittedly sometimes bitter manner of my criticism and how much they are turned off because I’ve, over the course of several blogs, presented some essentially irrefutable evidence of dramatically non-progressive things that Obama has done in office. Calling him The Savior is admittedly not constructive, and I plead guilty to having succumbed to political anger in response to far too many Democrats blindly supporting the current president, no matter how non-progressive, and in many instances (particularly civil liberties, secrecy in government, and boondoggles to large corporations), downright conservative his actions have been.

Nonetheless, believing Einstein was correct when he said that “one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true,” I agree that I have been gratuitously and self-defeatingly harsh in the tone (but not the substance) of what I have written about President Obama. (One friend claimed that I had written “fuck you” to critics of my criticism of him, to which I replied that I would never write such a thing in a blog. It turns out that I did not write it in that context, but two years ago, in a withering condemnation of right wing lunacy, I closed the column by saying “fuck you” to right-wing crazies. There is no place for such nastiness in political discourse, and I both apologize for posting that remark and promise to henceforth leave such tactics to the likes of Dick Cheney.)

I am also frequently told that I turn people off by never mentioning anything good that Obama has done. Let me do so now. I just learned from a friend that, thanks to this president, if one is laid off, she or he only has to pay 35% of Cobra costs for the first nine months. In his first two days in office, President Obama issued two executive orders regarding Bush’s secret maintenance of information. The first reversed Bush restrictions of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) access, thereby giving citizens greater access once more, to government and presidential information, and the second reversed Bush’s notorious executive order that allowed a president to keep information secret after his or her term, thus requiring former presidents to sue for the right to do so, under a strong burden of proof. Also in his first week in office, to me, by far his best (meaning most progressive) week, he reversed Bush’s denial (through the EPA) to states, especially California – which is not only the most populous state, but also an important transportation trend-setter – the right to set their own auto emissions and fuel efficiency standards beyond those required by federal rules.

He also ordered Gitmo closed by late January, 2010, although critics from both sides question the wisdom of what he plans to do with the prisoners now residing there. In his initially proposed stimulus package, Obama called for $150 billion in new federal spending for school districts, child care centers and universities. Without question, the man has done good things. My question, however, is if I am so readily willing to admit he’s done good things in office, why are most liberal Democrats so loathe to, or even incapable of admitting that he has also done bad things in office (and that it is intellectually permissible to argue that the severity of the bad things outweigh the benefits of the good ones)?

Naomi Klein says it is because we are in love with him, and love is stupid. To which I add that we needed a Savior, so we invented one. We are not only entitled, but obliged as vigilant and progressive citizens, to watch what he does as closely as what he says, and hold his feet to the fire when he is wanting. As Howard Zinn wrote in the May, 2009 issue of The Progressive, “Our job is not to give him a blank check or simply be cheerleaders. It was good that we were cheerleaders while he was running for office, but it’s not good to be cheerleaders now.” We must see what is before us, not what we want to see. If the guy or woman shows no signs of liking you, he or she probably doesn’t like you. If you’re not playing piano reasonably well after a few years of lessons, you probably won’t make it to Carnegie Hall, no matter how much you practice. If the President of the United States continues to act in importantly non-progressive ways, for say a couple more years, he’s probably not a progressive President.

It doesn’t matter how much my critique of Obama bothers people. What matters is what he does. Before his election, Obama said, “It’s not enough to get out of Iraq; we have to get out of the mindset that led us into Iraq.” Do you, his loyal liberal supporters, truly believe that the President is getting us out of the mindset that led us into Iraq? This column is not to argue substantive specifics, but here I ask you, rather than replying with platitudes about how much better than the alternative he is, if you really think he is acting with a mindset other than the one that led us into Iraq. From where I sit, Mr. Obama is exacting the quintessence of the Iraq mindset with his policies in Afghanistan.

To my twelve or thirteen readers, I offer the following proposition: I will do my level best to set aside my prejudices against the man and write of Mr. Obama without anger, hostility or bitterness, if you in turn, will set aside your unquestioning approval of him and rationalizations in defense of his policies, taking a long hard look to see if he is really doing the things you wanted when you voted for him last November 4th. Then perhaps we can have a constructive conversation about Barack Obama and in the areas where we agree he is wanting, work together to fulfill our civic duty to make him become a better President.

July 4, 2009

MR. PRESIDENT, WHERE ARE YOUR CLOTHES, OOPS, I MEAN PROGRESSIVE POLICIES?

I am acutely cognizant of the fact that politics is the art of compromise and that no president, however well-intended, can accomplish all he sets out to do. I also believe, however, from the luxury of not bearing the weight of his office, that there are minimal moral decencies that must be respected and observed by a President, in spite of the direct political consequences (meaning in terms of electoral status).

The gravamen of my complaints against Obama’s Presidency lie in his continuation and expansion of what are now his three wars, his – in my meager opinion – alarmingly non-resistant giving in to corporate power, his unwillingness to stand up for true equality for gays, despite alluding to intentions to do so during his campaign (although in fairness, he always said he opposed same-sex marriage), his unconstitutional remission in failing to go after members of the Bush Administration, including Bush himself, for crimes committed in office, including war crimes that merit life imprisonment, his remarkably disappointing allowance of terrible environmental policies to be set by his cabinet members, Salazar at Interior and Jackson at EPA, his less than bold choice of Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, his almost scandalous willingness to allow “intelligence” secrecy to continue, in clear violation of fourth amendment dictates to the contrary, his refusal to even place single payer nationalized health care coverage of all citizens on the table (although here again, I admit he has been forced by health care advocates to bring the possibility of some form of governmental insurance into play), a conspicuous lack of commitment to helping the homeless and destitute of this country, or rebuilding our dangerously sagging infrastructure (schools, highways, etc.), and – in short – what I, admittedly harshly, perceive to be a substantial lack of moral courage that runs through and not only informs his presidency, but leads to the above-stated consequences. He does the easy stuff, but he’s not willing to take Rooseveltian leaps of boldness onto the visionary paths we now desperately need government to travel.

I shall add brief particulars here to some of the above remarks. Regarding the wars, his policy is not only a continuation of the neo-con Bush era, but a deepening and therefore, to me, worsening of it. He hasn’t withdrawn any mentionable number of troops from Iraq in five months. He has openly and almost braggingly expanded the war in Afghanistan (for which he shall, I strongly believe, rue the day he did so), which I believe will result in tragic consequences to America (not to mention the Afghan people), and he is now pretty much neck-deep in Pakistan. I am not oblivious to the fact that there are nasty people out there who wish us harm, but his continuation and expansion of Bush’s dream of American empire is a dangerous loaded gun coming back to haunt us.

Let us not go into MSM (mainstream media) coverage of the wars (or anything else, for that matter, other than the death of Michael Jackson which they were all about, since it in no way threatened corporate control of American government), given that the MSM is simply the propaganda arm of the corporate state (and I haven’t got time or space here to make the case for that, or the fact that Beltway pundits serve one interest only, their own preservation and expansion of power and influence, because of which they now sicken me far too much to any longer watch their shows), but instead let us look at the reality.

The Afghan civilians we are continuously mistakenly slaughtering hate us passionately. In Pakistan, our errant drones kill increasingly large numbers of civilians, but then it’s only collateral damage to us. Unfortunately, to the innocent victims of these errant attacks, it’s a tragedy and a life-long commitment to hating the United States. For example, in our recent efforts to drive the Taliban out of the Swat valley, we have terrified at least two million citizens of that region into fleeing their homes and becoming desperate refugees. Now, there’s a way to win hearts and minds, isn’t it?

We have killed well over a million people in Iraq, probably closer to 1.5 million, at least ninety percent of whom were civilians. The war there costs four billion dollars a month. The war in Afghanistan costs well over three billion dollars a month now and the price is rising. We can’t get a handle on the cost of war in Pakistan, but let’s say an even billion a month. None of this counts the secret “black” intelligence budgeting that adds up to who can even say how much more, but it is a very reasonable and modestly conservative estimate to say that our three wars now cost us ten billion dollars a month. That is insane. Let me put that in more modest terms: That is insane.

We cannot afford it. And have remarkably little benefit to show for it after seven plus years of this lunacy, a lunacy that includes countless war crimes committed by the American military and high command, from the last President of the United States, down the line to some of the troops in the field. Support our troops doesn’t mean even when they commit war crimes. There is an old saying we often hear the first half of: “My country right or wrong.” The second half of the quote we aren’t often told is, “if it’s right, keep it right, if it’s wrong, make it right.” In today’s climate, even so-called liberal Democrats, which they are not, take vitriolic umbrage when one suggests our country, or far worse, President Obama, T.S. (The Savior), might be wrong.

As for corporate America, which succeeded – amidst all the hoopla of a black man being elected Savior – in “winning over” Obama before he even took office, the billions, which may well now be trillions of dollars that has been given the big hitters, with Obama’s blessing and insistence, has been accompanied by no concomitant insistence upon transparency or accountability, whatsoever, and the dearth of efforts by the Administration, and I do indeed mean the Obama Administration, to re-regulate the financial banking and investment industries, a failure that is, to my admittedly harshly judgmental way of thinking, scandalous in its remission and failure on the part of the President to do his duty.

Sotomayor will be a moderately liberal justice, unless she votes to repeal Roe v. Wade, but I doubt she’ll do that. It is worth noting, however, that Obama never seriously considered a bold progressive and highly talented and qualified choice for the bench, two names readily coming to mind being Larry Tribe and Elizabeth Holtzman. No, choosing a genuine progressive was also “off the table” before the selection process began, for to fight the right-wing lunacy in the Senate would have required moral courage, something I’ve seen precious little of in Mr. Obama’s conduct to date.

Gays are the one progressive interest group standing up and screaming that the emperor has no clothes, as Obama continues his brilliantly eloquent obfuscation of the issues, in his efforts to do notably little in bringing constitutionally mandated equality, true equality, to the GLBTQ community. Obama’s handling of gay issues is quintessential “worship what I say, but don’t watch what I do” Obamese, cake for the masses: He made a big ceremony over extending federal benefits to partners of gays, without happening to mention, of course, that those benefits wouldn’t extend to health care for partners because that is prohibited by the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Meanwhile, Obama’s Justice Department filed a brief in federal court last month defending DOMA, but The Savior explained it away as a “speed bump” on the way to legislative repeal of the law. The logic gets a bit convoluted, so let’s get this straight: Obama had his Justice Department file a brief, supporting the legality of DOMA so that it can be repealed. That’s our Savior. When he entertains gay leaders at a White House commemoration of the fortieth anniversary of the Stonewall riots next week, I trust a few of those highly intelligent “leaders” will point out their dissatisfaction with his logic.

Would that other betrayed progressives would stand up to his waffling, obfuscation, clever triangulation and downright selling out of progressive principles, but alas, the Democrats continue to worship at the shrine of The Savior. Heaven forbid we should truly cast racism aside and call a moderately conservative president a moderately conservative president, regardless of what his color happens to be.

As for the poor, we can dispense with that silly notion quickly: What poor? I’ve never heard the President mention them. By the way, what has he done to stop developers from quasi-legally stealing the conveniently condemned homes of abandoned blacks in the ninth ward of New Orleans, so that they can eventually drive the rightful tenants out and sell the land for a large killing, bringing white gentrification to New Orleans? Haven’t heard that mentioned by the Black Savior. Comprehensive policies to house, feed and medicate the homeless? Narry a word. After all, The Savior wouldn’t want to offend the right wing lunatics, who clearly need psychiatric care more than legislative appeasement, even though they have proven that they will never vote for his bills, nor quit skewering him in the press (albeit, for all the wrong reasons).

Obama had Eric Holder, the Attorney General claim, after the NSA was let completely off the hook for criminal and unconstitutional violations of our civil rights, by conducting unimaginably extensive illegal wiretapping of American citizens, announce that the problem had been resolved, or reconciled, I can’t remember the exact word, but it added up to we’re letting it go. As for Bush Administration crimes, well, we’re looking forward, not backward. The next time you’re stopped going ninety in a school zone, explain smilingly to the officer that you were indeed doing ninety, but that was then, and we’re looking forward, not backward.

To those who claim prosecution of the Bushies would interfere with our “moving forward” with important progressive legislation (again, what progressive legislation?), I suggest they ask themselves if proving we are a nation of laws, rather than one of powerful dynastic individuals might not be a matter of some consequence.

Where is the legislative proposal to rebuild our infrastructure? Or the presidential advocacy for single-payer health-care in America, the only western democratic country on the planet without such coverage for its citizens, and here’s a bulletin for the insurance industry, not one of those other nations has yet crumbled. Where is the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the shamefully prejudicial military policy which 75% of Americans now oppose?

Mr. Obama claimed a new ruling by his Administration would protect streams beneath mountaintop removal sites, even though the new policy is guaranteed to allow this heinous and ecologically, not to mention humanly catastrophic abomination to continue, but did so in such a clever way that he succeeded in claiming he opposed it. The wolves and the polar bears took a serious hit under Obama’s Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, when Obama allowed him to maintain Bush Administration policies not to protect either of these species. The Savior wouldn’t want to offend the Palin crowd. (Does he expect their votes in his re-election bid of 2012?)

The list goes on and on and on. I cannot commit all of my grievances against The Savior to paper. I consider him the worst disappointment in the history of the Presidency. Be clear, I do not say or mean the worst president, as GWB clearly secured that honor for decades, if not centuries, to come, but for someone so brilliant, so talented, so fully aware of the plight of the needy, the destitute, the disenfranchised, the downtrodden, racial minorities, practitioners of alternative lifestyles, and the desperate longing of the people of other lands to be free of the ceaseless reign of terror visited upon them by American bombs, Obama gets my vote for the most disappointing president in my lifetime. And I’ve been around a while.

To those who say, give him time, I reply, I shall indeed, for I suspect my now almost universally-condemned take on the Obama Presidency will soon seem slightly less unsupportable. I fervently hope that I am proven wrong, but when I am not, I shall neither gloat with I told you so-ness, nor rejoice in the accuracy I now fear lies in my Cassandra-like prognostications. Rather, shall I weep over the further decline of our once-great nation, as it slides deeper into corporate fascism, supported by consumer avarice that has replaced citizen vigilance, and I shall ask my friends to bear with me, for my heart is in the coffin there with Caesar, and I must pause ‘til it come back to me.

THE SELLING OUT OF NANCY PELOSI AND BLIND WORSHIP OF THE SAVIOR

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, most powerful member of the U.S. House of Representatives, grew up in a politically active, militantly pro-union family in Baltimore and moved to San Francisco, where she rose through Democratic Party ranks and got herself elected to the U.S. House, regularly winning overwhelming majority re-election votes by THE most liberal constituency in the United States, the voters of San Francisco, California, and always pushed for liberal/left causes, until ascending, in a feminist coup de grace, to the Speakership, just over two years ago.

What, pray tell, has this dangerously leftist liberal done since rising to that position? She immediately and single-handedly blocked House Judiciary Committee hearings on articles of impeachment against Bush, emphatically declaring that "impeachment is off the table," continually claims to favor, yet obstructs any investigation into or prosecution of the top-ranking members of the Bush Administration, regularly speaks in unconditional defense of Israel, without recognizing rights in the Palestinians, let alone mentioning war crimes committed against them almost daily by Israeli troops, and knew all about (we just learned) but in no way opposed our torturing of suspects in Iraq, apparently being the second member of Congress to learn of such tactics, back in 2002.

In spite of claiming to "personally" support a single payer health insurance program, which most experts agree would give the greatest coverage to workers and administratively save the most money, has labeled this program dead in the water because it is “impractical,” meaning the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies who adamantly oppose it, give Nancy and her friends a LOT of money in the form of campaign contributions. Dickens fans can't help but assume that, were Oliver Twist's Mister Bumble to learn that such bribery was long ago legalized by Congress itself, he would, with withering incredulity, reiterate his legendary utterance: “Does the law say that? Then, the law is a ass, a idiot.”

Continuing the pattern of flagrant disconnect (can you say hypocrisy?) between her “personal” views and the “practical and necessary” agenda she pursues as OUR representative on Capitol Hill, Pelosi also claims to support the Employee Free Choice Act, which would facilitate workers’ ability to unionize in the face of illegal managerial tactics frequently employed to quash union organizing under the current rules, but - déjà vu all over again - can’t bring this to a vote now because we have bigger priorities, thereby neatly protecting Brobama The Savior (who hasn’t yet shown any morally courageous inclination to push for hot button items that would require a knock down, drag out with the corporate fascists masquerading as the Republican Party) from having to actually sponsor a genuinely progressive issue.

More important to Obama, and rounding out this all too brief summary of Pelosi’s impeachable dereliction of duty, she unconditionally supports every Executive measure to expand our involvement in ALL THREE mideast wars (Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan), no questions asked.

This is our "most liberal member" of the U.S. House of Representatives. Nancy Pelosi’s record as Speaker of the House is living proof of Lord Acton's famous observation, written over a hundred years ago, that “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Her lightning quick sell-out to corporate power constitutes an abominable abdication of moral and constitutional duty. In THIS world and THIS country, however, she is loved by the Democratic Party, hailed as a champion of liberal "values" and staunchly supported by AIPAC, the immensely powerful lobby whose raison d’etre is to assure that billions of U.S. tax-dollars continue to flow to a never has been and never will be wrong Israeli government and military, so that Pentagon East (the IDF) can continue to keep the Mideast safe for democracy.

How often does one hear such things discussed by the propaganda arm of the corporate state (aka The Mainstream Media)? Never. Imagine what efficacious pedagogical miracles could be wrought if the true progressives in this country owned or controlled just one major network or cable television station. Of course, it would be shut down post haste by the FCC, or if more drastic measures were required, bombing.

Finally, just a quick shout out to the President and the Pentagon, for how well Obama’s war in the Mideast is going. In yesterday’s change of command in Afghanistan, General McKiernan was replaced by Lt. General McChrystal, so we now have the Afghan theatre being overseen by a man who was neck-deep in the Pat Tillman coverup and we can reasonably expect chapter and verse repetition of the pattern of our catastrophic military tactics of the past fifty years: Increasingly massive bombing of civilians, blaming the deaths and casualties that inevitably result from these operations (human bodies tend to disintegrate when hit by exploding bombs) – euphemistically known as “collateral damage" - on the Taliban, puppet Afghan President Karzai’s pleading with Obama to stop the bombing falling on increasingly deaf presidential ears, more and more troops being introduced, more and more hatred against the U.S. by the people of Afghanistan, and deeper and deeper we shall wade into what (just turned ninety years old) Pete Seeger called our Vietnam debacle, “the Big Muddy." Pete also asked in his legendary anti-war folksong, written almost fifty years ago, “When will they ever learn?” Answer: NEVER.

But let’s keep rockin' in the free world, giving trillions of dollars to the corporate power brokers who criminally and with wanton disregard destroyed the American economy for the next generation or two, and ask for no accountability or transparency in return, or re-regulation of the banking and investment industries, who’ve proven so impressively what an unfettered “free market” can do. What does the almost psychotically uncritical national approval of Obama and shamefully widespread citizen disregard for Pelosi's egregious betrayal of the public trust and the actual state of affairs in this country, the reality of which is taboo in the corporate media, tell us? We get the government we deserve.

Letter to Brobama on Supreme Court Vacancy

Dear President Brobama,

Appreciating that you are rather busy, I shall cut to the proverbial chase and strongly recommend that you appoint Elizabeth Holtzman to the Supreme Court seat vacated by Justice Souter’s retirement. She, being brilliant, ethically unimpeachable, tirelessly diligent, and deeply experienced as a prosecutor, a Congressperson, and an attorney and constitutional scholar, would make an ideal replacement for Mr. Souter.

In terms of political capital, she’s a wonderful twofer: A Jewish woman! The only problem I envision is that she takes the rule of law over individuals, however powerful those individuals may be, very seriously. She wouldn’t be the least happy with your refusing to enforce the law against the knaves, thugs and thieves affectionately known as the Bush Dynasty, but that is all the more reason to appoint her to The Bench.

As a sitting justice, her governmental role would be completely passive, waiting for cases to arrive at her door, safely removed from the possibility of serving in some prosecutorial capacity wherefrom she might go after the perfidious and nefarious bastards, incarcerating them as the law demands. Don't want loose cannons who take justice seriously out and about, never knowing when they might cause trouble. Inconvenient thing, moral courage. Ah, but you, Mr. President, needn't be bothered by such matters.

Ms. Holtzman, however, is righteousness waiting to happen. Best put her on the Court. It would be, among a litany of impressive ones, your greatest triangulation yet. I offer this suggestion as bona fide food for thought, Mr. President.

A Clearly Loyal and Unquestioning Supporter