Corporations Are NOT Persons: Why I’m Liberal #3

This should be a no-brainer: corporations are fictional entities created for the economic benefit of individuals. Yet as the recent Supreme Court decision made clear, our nation has made an incredible mistake in granting legal personhood to these amoral institutions. And the legal personhood of corporations is both a cornerstone of the erosion of American liberty that conservatives (and liberals) decry, and a cornerstone of conservative and Republican policy. It is not a coincidence that Bush II's nominees, Alito and Roberts, both voted for corporations at the expense of people and freedom.

While it's obvious that corporate personhood is an emperor-with-no-clothes, the establishment of it has been a long time coming. The 1886 case, Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad, opened the floodgates. Note in the preamble to the text from the link that corporate personhood was never argued or discussed by the Supreme Court; it was simply an assertion by one single justice, which completely changed the law and the course of history. The author goes on to say:

"The doctrine of corporate personhood creates an interesting legal contradiction. The corporation is owned by its shareholders and is therefore their property. If it is also a legal person, then it is a person owned by others and thus exists in a condition of slavery -- a status explicitly forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. So is a corporation a person illegally held in servitude by its shareholders? Or is it a person who enjoys the rights of personhood that take precedence over the presumed ownership rights of its shareholders? So far as I have been able to determine, this contradiction has not been directly addressed by the courts."

In his book, "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," (buy it here) Thom Hartmann does an excellent job of analyzing the costs and consequences of this great conservative fallacy, so I won't go into detail here. (I highly recommend reading this book – especially if you vote Republican!) Suffice it to say that the nominations of corporate lawyers Roberts and Alito to SCOTUS were not accidents. Their opinions on abortion were nothing but a sop to social conservatives; their unlimited support for the uber-rich and corporate personhood were the keys to their nominations. This is what makes Justice Sotomayer such a great choice, and is the strongest evidence to date that Obama may not be the corporate flunky his policies usually indicate.

The obvious consequence of corporate personhood is the establishment of an entity that is arguably a slave to a position of prominence over free men and women. It is a tool whereby, by amassing resources, a small cabal of individuals can exert overwhelming influence on political and economic policy. Note the resource base of the huge, multi-national corporations shown in the graph on the link to "corporations" above: what individual has any chance of matching that? Or even group of individuals? Yet these entities – some of them not even American corporations (Shell Oil, BP, DaimlerChrysler) – are granted the protections of personhood – but not the responsibilities. Individuals – persons – are fully liable for their actions; corporations, almost by definition, have limited liability.

The outcomes of this travesty are legion, but just to name a few:

• Corporate censorship: the news media are owned by multi-national corporations, and they choose what news gets printed or broadcast. Regardless of liberal journalists, it is corporate boards who choose content. Thus the appearance of liberalism in the news media veneered over bedrock economic conservatism. The corporate elite don't care shit about the degradation of culture seen in Hollywood, or abortion, or family, morals, justice, etc. They care about maintaining their power and privilege. The news that's printed/broadcast is chosen to protect those specific economic interests. Corporate shill Rush Limbaugh's rants about liberal media are just part of the package, as deeply cynical and hypocritical as you can get. Note that General Electric, a major defense contactor, owns NBC, a major news outlet – an inherent conflict of interest. The Christian Science Monitor is one of the last relatively independent news sources of any reach, which is part of the reason for its good reputation.
  
• Employment of the US military to defend the interests of corporations overseas and extend economic hegemony over the world; to defend American Empire. This is the real issue in the so-called "War on Terror," and the unsustainability of our military budget and adventurism, along with Peak Oil, is the reason we will ultimately lose. The all-volunteer military is part of this package. People who have chosen to sign a contract and make an explicit agreement to obey orders feel it is their duty to do so even when it is contrary to the best interest of themselves and their nation; draftees resist when told to do unconscionable acts.
  
• The degradation of the US military and abdication of humanitarian responsibility and accountability by the hiring of mercenaries.
  
• The inevitable degradation and erosion of American liberty, and growing irrelevance of both the Constitution and the federal government.
• The degradation of our food supply, including loss of topsoil, animal abuse, etc.
  
• The merger of State and Corporate power.
  

To quote Benito Mussolini: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."

In other words, yes, Virginia, corporate personhood is the key to fascism. By adopting the cause of corporate personhood, the Republican leadership – though not Republican membership – has unreservedly committed to fascism. You won't find any of the Republican leadership accepting this claim, however. That would be political suicide. Instead, they hide their corporate agenda under popular moral platitudes, and extend support for a cynical, perverted Christianity as a means to deceive and manipulate their own political base. In his book "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America," Chris Hedges explains how this works.

Corporations are not persons, and they should be carefully controlled, granted limited charters, and restricted from political influence. I stand unreservedly opposed to fascism and the continued erosion of American liberty and secular government. I am a liberal.

*Standard note: I value dissenting opinions as crucial to the maintenance of freedom and democracy. While I would like to write convincingly, to influence opinion and sway the balance of power my way, I also consider the conservative viewpoint to be important and meaningful. I do, however, believe that political discourse does not have to be nasty and vicious. I prefer to listen to and respect my political opponents. I ask the same from them.

International Migrants' Day

Today is International Migrants' Day, commemorating the day in 1990 that the UN Assembly adopted the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (resolution 45/158). This article by Chandra Bhatnagar is worth reading for background, but suffice it to say that migrants face many human rights abuses right here in the original modern Bastion of Freedom known as the USA.

With that in mind, I call on all US agencies and employers to treat migrants with the humanity and respect that they deserve, simply by being our brothers and sisters born to the same divine Father-Mother as created us. I call on President Obama to direct his agencies to enforce all aspects of national and international law that protect these people from abuse, and to take immediate steps to rectify the situation in Villas-del-Sol, Puerto Rico, including provision of electricity, water, health care, and humanitarian aid as needed (see the article). And I extend my own prayers for all migrant workers in the US, and everywhere.

It is a disgrace for a nation of our proud heritage to continue to allow this kind of abuse, especially in the aftermath of the Hurricane Katrina travesty. If we cannot extend mercy, compassion, and basic human rights to people on our own soil, how can we ever expect to support it as far away as Afghanistan?

“I Love My Country…

… but I fear my government."

So reads a bumper sticker I've seen on a bunch of cars lately, from trucks with matching pro-gun stickers, to beat-up VW vans with Grateful Dead decals.

Enough.

I love my country, AND I REFUSE to fear my government.

I have made plain my disgust and dissent from the direction our federal government is going multiple times in recent years, in writing letters-to-the-editor to my local newspaper and national news magazines, and in the archives of this blog. I will continue to do so in the future. What I will not do is hide in fear, or remain silent about things that matter. Life is too short, and too beautiful; Love is too powerful; freedom is too precious.

When I attended the University of Oregon, I had an opportunity to take a class on the Soviet Union under Andrei Sinyavsky. I made sure to fit it into my schedule. Sinyavsky was an old man then; it was only a year before he died. He didn't speak English. A team of Russian immigrants translated for him, sitting on either side and towering over him, a tiny old man with a white beard – who yet towered over us all. I never missed a single class session, and when I had the chance I shook his hand and gave him my respect. Since I'd already filled elective requirements, the class did nothing for my degree; it did a lot for my education.

Sinyavsky knew what it meant to fear his government. He spent six years in the Soviet Gulag for criticizing the government in writing published under the pen name Abram Tertz. That writing, and his trial, gave birth to the modern Soviet dissident movement, which led to the collapse of that regime – which he lived to see. I will never forget his presence, nor his example.

Compared to that, we live in radical freedom, with a government that is simply benign – even if it is foolishly driving over a financial cliff, and even though black men often have to fear the government that will harrass them for such "crimes" as running while black, driving while black, and so on. As for our state, county, and municipal governments, they provide so many valuable services that I treasure them. I have no patience for people who make a big show about fearing our government as if it were a fearsome totalitarian state. Its problems are legion, but that's not one of them - at least not yet. We are incredibly lucky to live in this country, sharing in a legacy of liberty and boundless creativity.

Regardless of the overwhelming power that multinational corporations appear to have over our government, our government operates with our consent. It is us. There is no us vs. the government; we are the government. That is part of living in a democracy, even a broken one like ours. If we feel disempowered, then perhaps we should look deep inside ourselves, and determine what matters. Because no one can take away our power without our consent.

Political Science 101

I have a bad habit of going onto conservative blogs and starting conversations. It's my means of breaking out of my own liberal echo chamber and attempting to expand my understanding and horizons, while also pushing others to break out of theirs. Something I've noticed repeatedly on these forays is that conservatives (at least the ones on the blogs I visit) really don't understand political/economic systems very well. Typically they look at the current health care "reform" bill being proposed, and call it "Marxist" or "socialist." So, if any of you conservatives ever come visit me here, here's a short lesson to clarify the issue for you.

Socialism, especially as Marx espoused, is the when the state owns and operates the means of production and distribution. A completely socialist approach to the health care system would be as follows: 1) Nationalize the hospitals; eliminate private ownership of hospitals and clinics. 2) Make all health care providers employees of the state. 3) Nationalize pharmaceutical companies – the folks who research and make drugs. 4) That pretty much eliminates the need for health insurance. Everything's paid for by the state, anyway.

Fascism, on the other hand, allows for private ownership – but ensures that that ownership belongs to a certain class. As Benito Mussolini puts it, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."

So when Obama and other government officials meet with pharmaceutical and insurance lobbyists behind closed doors to negotiate how "health care reform" will not only be acceptable to them, but will make them primary beneficiaries, that's fascism. When the government requires citizens to purchase private insurance, that's fascism.

In fact, we've been seeing a lot of fascism in this country over the last 30 years or so. Now, it's SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) in Washington for lobbyists to write the majority of legislation, which our congresspeople then sponsor. That's why these bills are so long and complicated – they are designed by and for the wealthiest corporations in the world. And it's completely bipartisan. This is what Reagan did, in things like quietly privatizing the military. (Currently a large percentage of the American military system is composed of corporate mercenaries.) Clinton had NAFTA, GATT, and Hillarycare. Bush had the PATRIOT Act, no-bid contracts, the Iraq invasion and occupation, and so on. Now Obama's signed on with this very fascist health care plan.

Of course, we don't call it fascism. That wouldn't be PC at all. Instead, the conservative media lapdogs (Rush, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, et al) slam "the liberals" and call it "socialism" when liberals do it, and "conservatism" or "common sense" when Republicans do it – as if the problem were this large liberal section of the American people. And liberal voices retaliate, and a vicious and divisive political discourse cripples any resistance possible from a united grassroots movement of citizens who have a common interest in tearing down fascism in this country.

The irony is that people on both sides think their leaders have their own best interests at heart, and care about liberty for the masses. Not so. The leaders care about maintaining their positions, and because We the People are ignorant, angry, and misinformed, and don't recognize our common interests and humanity, we let them.

I feel sad when I see the vicious rhetoric so common on various blogs, because it ensures that we won't listen to each other or find common ground. Instead, it aids the very people who are bleeding our freedom away. It is deeply self-destructive.

Bibliography:

Bernays, Edward: Propaganda

Johnson, Chalmers: Blowback – the costs and consequences of American Empire

Gatto, John Taylor: The Underground History of American Education

Briody, Dan: The Iron Triangle: Inside the Carlyle Group

Marx, Karl: The Communist Manifesto

Rand, Ayn: Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

Hartmann, Thom: Unequal Protection and What Would Jefferson Do?: A return to democracy

Omerud, Paul: Butterfly Economics

Singer, P.W.: Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry

Mill, John Stuart: On Liberty

Palast, Greg: The Best Democracy Money Can Buy

Hayek, F. A.: The Road To Serfdom

plus a whole bunch of books on WWII that I read before I started keeping records, and so can't cite individually.

Health Care Redux

The more I consider the health care system "reform" currently being debated and opposed so ardently by conservatives, the more opposed I am to it – though not, I suspect, for the reasons they'd quote. In my last post, I said I was agnostic after looking at all the good things that are being proposed. Many of the things Obama and the Democrats are trying to do are not only worthwhile, but morally imperative. However, the very attractiveness of that led me to miss the key point: it addresses the symptoms of the health care malaise, without addressing the underlying problems that create the symptoms. Because of that, it is doomed to fail.

The problems of our current health care system are as follows: 1. It is an extremely complex system, in a situation where simplicity is proven, all over the world, to be more effective and far more efficient. 2. It allows outrageous rewards for malpractice suits, which drives outrageous costs for malpractice insurance. 3. It prohibits the public payer from negotiating prices with the providers. 4. The payer in most situations is motivated by profit (not need) in a system where profit is maximized by denying (not providing) the services needed – effectively rationing health care and reducing choice far more effectively than even this bill would allow.

This bill actually addresses none of these problems. Instead, it takes a quintessentially Republican approach to legislate better results out of a failing system: Government officials meet with corporate industry officials behind closed doors to craft legislation which is then crammed down the citizen's throats. Benito Mussolini would approve; he'd call it fascism – "the merging of corporate and state power." It is a mystery to me why the folks who supported Bush oppose this plan – it is exactly the kind of thing that he would support and promote.

At the risk of being boring and redundant, the solution is simple: 1. To deal with problems #1 & 4 above, expand Medicare to include everyone, and reform the paperwork process to make it simple, easy, and able to process in multiple ways (digital, hard copy, etc.). (This has the added benefit of increasing everyone's choices on doctors, providers, and so on, because every provider is a preferred provider, and there is no out-of-network unless you leave the country.) 2. To deal with problem #2 above, limit malpractice suit rewards. 3. To deal with #3 above, require Medicare to negotiate prices. 4. To additionally deal with #4 above, cover alternative health care (acupuncture, Christian Science, etc.) and preventative care.

The current reform plan on the table operates from the same assumptions and paradigm as the current system, and merely attempts to legislate better results. But without reforming the system, we won't get better results. As Einstein said, "Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them." While doing some things to mitigate the symptoms of our current insane system, this plan will hurt vulnerable populations – small business and the middle class – while providing huge, usurious profits to huge, corrupt corporations. It will delay genuine reform. Liberals should stand side-by-side with our conservative brethren and sistren in opposition to it.

The Health Care Reform Bill

Caveat: I don't have time to research H.R. 3200, the House version of this bill, or any of the others, completely; so this analysis is based on reading the summary, scanning the text, and commentary from other sources. My analysis may have major holes in it. However, a conservative friend asked me to comment on it, so I'll give it a try.

First, this bill is almost 500 pages long. A basic principle I like to go by, articulated by Albert Einstein, is, "Everything should be made as simples as possible – but not simpler." Clearly, this bill fails that simple test.

The bill does have a lot of good points. It eliminates exclusions for pre-existing conditions. It limits out-of-pocket expenses and doesn't limit payouts. It covers preventive services. It provides health insurance for everyone. It requires the rich to pay more than the poor and middle class. It guarantees coverage for everyone. It includes mental health services. And so on.

My objections are as follows:

1. It's way more complex than it has to be. (See comment above.) It establishes a new bureaucracy, the "Health Choices Administration," with additional layers such as the "Health Insurance Exchange." It establishes a new public health insurance provider within this, I think as part of the Exchange. In addition, it seeks to fill the prescription benefit hole with this new insurance, so that people covered by Medicare then have the additional complexity of multiple payers for the same product, essentially doubling the paperwork. Every one of those is completely unnecessary and redundant. We've already got two public plans, Medicare and Medicaid, which is one more than we should have. Medicare has its problems, but it is run very efficiently. In fact, providing insurance is one of those places where government can excel, exceeding the efficiencies and effectiveness of private insurance because it is not motivated by profit, but by service.

2. The Health Insurance Exchange is supposed to compete with private insurers. Big mistake. I'd rather see something like the old-age insurance (Social Security) system: it is available for all, and if you want supplemental financial planning services, go for it.

3. It requires employers to provide coverage, based on payroll, not profitability. Really bad idea. We should be divorcing employers from providing coverage, not requiring more. Almost all other developed nations (those with which we trade) have single payer public health insurance; employers in those nations don't have the added cost of providing coverage. It's just one stupid way to make our own industry less competitive on the global market. Besides, it can really hit small employers hard, especially if their payroll is bigger than their profit. Expect marginal businesses to go under.

4. It doesn't mention "medically necessary." It should. Any procedure, service, or product considered medically necessary should be covered. That includes Sex Reassignment Surgery.

5. It imposes a tax on individuals without a health plan. That's okay, but I'd rather see a single-payer system that basically taxes everyone.

6. If it is true that people will be fined if they don't purchase a health care package, that is a major objection. "Nothing of benefit to the individual is obtained through coercion." (Socrates, I think?) I can think of no way to increase resistance to this bill better than this. People hate coercion, and rightfully so. I hate it. "Give me liberty, or give me death!"

7. Cost is not adequately addressed. (See update and link to Field's post below.) Without giving the public health insurance entity full ability to negotiate prices and without limiting the extent of malpractice suit penalties, cost cannot be adequately addressed. And creating redundant public bureaucracies adds a completely unnecessary level of cost, just for administration. It's stupid and counter-productive.

This health care reform bill is nowhere near as bad as some of the conservative commentary I've seen on it. For instance, one such objection is that it rations your health care. This exhibits the privileged ignorance of those who make this objection. Health care is already rationed, usually by income level. Poor people often have no coverage. Trans people can't obtain medically necessary procedures that are available to others. In fact, private insurers ration by pre-existing condition, exclusions, maximum payouts, preferred provider networks, and every other means they can legally access. This bill may well ration health care, but by eliminating maximum payouts, pre-existing conditions, and income refusals, it significantly reduces existing rationing. Another objection is that a government committee will determine your treatments and benefits. So what? Under private care, you've got an insurance executive, whose paycheck depends on reducing benefits provided to you, making those choices. And guess which one can be held accountable? (Hint: it's not the executive.) Making things better does not necessarily constitute making things perfect, but that's no reason not to do it.

Going back to Einstein's quote, the solution to the health care mess is way simpler than this bill. All we need to do is make Medicare available to everyone, with the following reforms: a) require it to negotiate prices. b) simplify the paperwork – everyone is covered, every provider a preferred provider; list the products and services provided to the patient on one sheet of paper, submit for payment, and you're done. c) limit malpractice suit payouts. d) cover alternative systems, such as acupuncture, naturopaths, homeopathy, and Christian Science treatment. Medicare is an efficiently run, existing agency; expanding it is simple, efficient, and effective. You could fit a far more complete reform package into a 25- or 50-page bill.

In sum, this bill is nowhere near as bad as the conservatives would make it out to be. It's also nowhere near as good as some liberals are making it out to be. It has some major problems, but also some really good stuff. Having looked at the actual bill, however briefly, I've modified my opposition. I'm agnostic. It will make some things better, but it will also create new problems which are obvious and predictable, and leaves other problems unaddressed. Whether there is a net social benefit to the bill is unclear to me – there may be one, and there may not. If it passes, we'll just have to wait and see.

One thing is clear, however: This health care reform bill could be a hell of a lot better.

Update: Field Negro is one smart cookie. When he posts something like this, I tend to believe it - and I agree with his commentary, especially about having each other's backs.

Self-Preservation: Why I’m a Liberal #2

I'm a trans woman, a full-blown member of the LGBT community. By default, my choice of primary political party affiliation must be Democrat. The GOP has established itself in opposition – even violent animosity – against me and every other gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans person in the country. I can't understand the Log Cabin Republicans, gay members of the party that desires to oppress them. They're like the gay versions of House Negroes.

Regardless of what conservatism may have meant in the past, it currently stands against equal rights and justice, firmly on the side of oppression and judgment. Conservatives have placed themselves in opposition to Thomas Jefferson's defining statement of American values: "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." Every effort of LGBT people to indulge in these rights, which conservatives take for granted in regards to themselves, is met with determined resistance by them. The oppression – frequently but not always unintended – is often invisible for these conservatives. In the same way, many white people have no understanding of how our culture oppresses black people, and many men are clueless about how it oppresses women. Those individuals who do not take this stand are drowned out and neutralized by those that do. Votes count for something, and actions speak louder than words.

This is not to say that conservatives have bad intentions. Often, their intent is only to support the institutions that have supported them, in our culture, for decades or centuries – religion, law, tradition, marriage, family, and so on. I have no trouble with that; in fact, I support them, too. The difference lies in that I believe there is room for all of us. I support those institutions not just for the majority, but for all of us.

When it comes to LGBT issues – to allowing gays to marry, to antidiscrimination laws, to universal health care, to fair taxation, etc. – I believe that we create a better society when all are welcome within it. I have experienced the social pressure to conform to a norm that is unnatural to me. I know the isolation and desolation of the closet. As a compassionate human being, I want to do all I can to relieve that pain for all. I also believe that the society we will create from granting gays, lesbians, and trans people an equal place at the table, will not be an immoral hell, but a healthier, happier, and more peaceful society. I believe that everyone should have the right to express themselves, not only within the parameters of this nation's First Amendment, but also in respect to the way they present their own gender. I believe that everyone has a right to safety within their own community, and given the bullying and abuse of gender variant children on schoolyards, and the frequency of gay- and trans-bashing incidents, we must counter the demonization of LGBT people wherever we find it. In fact, as a trans woman, I'm an activist just by showing up.

These beliefs are born in the conviction that people do not choose to be gay, or trans. I know I didn't choose to be trans; it was something I fought hard against for 40 years. It's born in an intimate knowledge of my own morality and genuine family values, and in the proximate knowledge I have of the values and morality of the gays, lesbians, and trans people of my acquaintance. It's also born in my own religious conviction, in the words of Jesus: "Judge not, lest ye be judged." "Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you." "Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" "God is love."

Ultimately, it comes down to two worldviews. One values unity of culture, the comfort and ease of living in a world where every interaction with another human is predictable – it orients around a status quo; the other values the variety of diversity, enjoys engaging with and is curious about people one doesn't understand, and orients around openness, love, and acceptance. I embrace the second. I also recognize the need for balance. Without some unity of culture, it's hard to find our place in the world, but without diversity, culture is boring and oppressive.

In sum, my liberal views on LGBT issues come from both prior conviction and resistance to discrimination. They come from native belief and self-preservation. But even if native belief weren't there, the needs for safety and self-determination trumps all; even if my beliefs were conservative, I would still ally with liberals in my own defense, and in the defense of those who share my condition.

* Standard note: I value dissenting opinions as crucial to the maintenance of freedom and democracy. While I would like to write convincingly, to influence opinion and sway the balance of power my way, I also consider the conservative viewpoint to be important and meaningful. I do, however, believe that political discourse does not have to be nasty and vicious. I prefer to listen to and respect my political opponents. I ask the same from them.

An Aside: Why I'm Liberal #1a

The difference between liberals and conservatives, inherent in the words themselves, is that conservatives stand to preserve the good that exists; liberals stand to make things better. Conservatism is by nature reactive; liberalism is proactive. Both have a place in the political order, and both are important in reaching a positive political outcome in most cases. Liberals have a tendency to overreach, to toss the good with the bad in their zeal for improvement, while conservatives tend to cling to social conditions that cause great damage in their zeal to preserve the positive conditions.

The interplay between these forces can, at its best, synthesize unforeseen solutions through respectful, compassionate communication. Such discourse generates new ideas as each side listens to the other. The liberal points out the need for improvement, or the damage the current conditions cause; the conservative then resists this presentation, pointing out how damage will result from the proposed change, or how positive conditions will be lost. In the continuing dialogue, the social needs that are or are not being met become clear, and, from that clarity, new solutions that can meet the needs of society present themselves – often with amazing ease.

It’s rather like a football team, with conservatives playing defense and liberals offense. With the shared goal of creating and maintaining the best society we can be, conservatives and liberals would play different roles on the same team, with respectful dialogue chasing positive solutions down the field.

Unfortunately, I rarely see this in our political discourse. Mostly I see people pushing their particular strategy for social preservation or reform, and when resistance comes from the other side, rather than listening and clarifying those needs that are/aren’t met, and the damage/good because of it, each side starts digging trenches and lobbing missiles. We play on opposite teams, and the goal becomes defeating the opposing team and winning the game. The chosen strategy becomes the need, rather than the means to meet the need. As the attacks escalate, each side grows more determined in promoting their chosen strategy, and the possibility of finding solutions that meet everyone’s needs go unexplored.

A case in point is marriage equality/defense of marriage. The presentation of allowing gays to marry as a solution to the problems of social inequity is resisted by people who value the concept of marriage as it has traditionally been applied through the Protestant establishment of our nation’s laws. I believe that a solution that both reduces or eliminates that social inequity, and strengthens families and communities (including “traditional” marriage), can be found. However, I have almost given up on finding it. The discourse has become so violent, and each side has become so defensive of their own position, that alienation becomes inevitable, and force becomes the means to end to the debate. When I hear conservatives suggest that we address the inequities through other means than changing marriage, it rings hollow; I have not heard them actually listen to us, and I have not seen any sign from any one of them that they would actually support any social action that may improve the lives of LGBT people. Every aspect, even our own natures, is opposed. How then do I find common ground?

To communicate, both sides must be willing to listen, and to respect, believe, and recognize the sincerity of the other side. Both sides must recognize that the other is not trying to destroy society, but to make it better – whether we realize it or not, our ultimate goals are the same. Only then will the possibility of conservatives and liberals working together to create the best society that we can be, be realized.

*Standard note: I value dissenting opinions as crucial to the maintenance of freedom and democracy. While I would like to write convincingly, to influence opinion and sway the balance of power my way, I also consider the conservative viewpoint to be important and meaningful. I do, however, believe that political discourse does not have to be nasty and vicious. I prefer to listen to and respect my political opponents. I ask the same from them.

A Journey of Reason and Discovery: Why I’m a Liberal #1

This is the first installment in a series inspired by someone who calls himself Euripedes, who wrote his own series on why he's a conservative. (Ironically, his sixth installment was to explain that he's a conservative because he agrees with Edmund Burke when he said self-interest should be put aside in the selection (election) of leaders, and that they should be chosen for integrity and for the good of all. In principle, I would guess this to be nearly universal to any viable democratic political philosophy. In practice, I think conservatives consistently perform worse on this than liberals, voting for narrow self-interest or to benefit one economic class over all others almost all the time, as opposed to liberals, who frequently vote to benefit society as a whole.)

Anyway, the place to start this series seems to be the beginning – the journey I've traveled to achieve liberalhood, and the sources I've explored on the way.

My father was a Goldwater conservative, a rancher in Wyoming who once ran for county commissioner as a Republican. Politics frequented our dinnertime conversation, and dominated during elections. All my neighbors were Republicans, so far as I know. In the school elections in 1972, I was the only person in my 5^th & 6^th grade class to vote for McGovern; everyone else voted for Nixon. But that vote was an anomaly, perhaps a sign of the distant future, and probably a symptom of the fact that I didn't fit in with the cisgendered kids. I went on to start my political life voting for Reagan – twice. (Since then, I've tried not to repeat my mistakes.) At that time, I hadn't really thought much about politics or economics, nor learned much about them.

I became disaffected with conservatism and Republicans shortly after Reagan began his second term. I noticed the neglect and damage his policies created for the environment. He replaced the "tax and spend" policies of Democrats with a "borrow and spend" mentality that was clearly unsustainable way back then, and has only grown worse to the present (ironically, reaching its apex – so far – under a Democrat who considers himself at least somewhat liberal). Iran-Contra blew up, exposing the corruption that ran deep throughout his administration. Still laden with a prejudice that made me unable to stomach Democrats, I abandoned the GOP and adopted third-party affiliations and candidates.

For the next 15 years, until 2000, I never voted for a Republican or a Democrat for president, and rarely for anything else. I explored Libertariansim, and read Ayn Rand's "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal." I compared it to "The Communist Manifesto," and to the actual economic conditions in our own nation and others. I briefly worked to help establish a Green Party in Missoula, Montana. I read John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty," and Thoreau's "Walden Pond" and "Civil Disobedience." I met Kristin, and my inability to satisfactorily answer her questions led me to question my own assumptions, and to think and explore further. I went to the University, and, though my field of study was architecture, I learned much more, including how to question and find answers. In the evening job I held to work through school (I was a janitor), I listened to talk radio. I listened to Rush Limbaugh, found him lying again and again, and his vicious rhetoric turned me off. Dr. Laura, Michael Savage, Shawn Hannity – none of them stood the test of truth and compassion. Then, when Air America took off, I listened to liberal radio. I found that some hosts - Thom Hartmann in particular - seemed to get their facts straight all or most of the time. Others, like Randy Rhodes, disappointed, with judgmental rants and lies that seemed to be no different from their conservative counterparts, just from the other side of the aisle.

Then, in 2000, a momentous event occurred, which irrevocably changed my life. My son was born. Within three months, I was his primary caretaker, and it soon became clear that the only way I could get him to fall asleep for his afternoon nap was to put him in the car and go for a drive. Since we lived in a house on a hillside, significantly above street level, I couldn't leave him in the car alone to go and do stuff, so each day for almost two years I had two to three uninterrupted hours in which to do nothing but read and think. Following is a brief list of some of the books I read during that time:

American Empire, by Andrew Bacevich

The Twilight of American Culture, by Morris Berman

Freedom in Chains, by James Bovard

America's Future, by William Boyer

Whole Life Economics, by Barbara Brandt

The Iron Triangle: Inside the Carlyle Group, by Dan Briody

The End of Economic Man, by George Brockway

Clueless at the Top, by Harriet and Charlotte Childress

The Growth Illusion, by Richard Douthwaite

Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, by Barbara Ehrenreich

The Underground History of American Education, by John Taylor Gatto

Mobilizing Resentment, by Jean Hardisty

The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight; Unequal Protection; and What Would Jefferson Do?: a Return to Democracy, by Thom Hartmann

Natural Capitalism, by Paul Hawken et al

The Road to Serfdom, by F. A. Hayek

Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt

Instead of Education, by John Holt

The Death of Common Sense, by Phillip Howard

Bushwhacked, by Molly Ivins et al

Blowback: the Costs and Consequences of American Empire, by Chalmers Johnson

Punished by Rewards, by Alfie Kohn

The Teenage Liberation Handbook, by Grace Llewellyn

What It Means to Be a Libertarian, by Charles Murray

Butterfly Economics, by Paul Omerod

How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America, by Christina Page

Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn

Bionomics, by Michael Rothschild

Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Fundamentalist Islam, and the Future of America, by Michael Scheuer

Corporate Warriors: the Rise of the Privatized Military Industry, by P. W. Singer

When God Was a Woman, by Merlin Stone

The Fourth Turning, by William Strauss & Neil Howe

The Power of Now, by Eckhart Tolle

The Poverty of Affluence, by Paul Wachtel

and more.

This doesn't count the magazines, articles, and political and economic columns I read, nor my obsessive reading of the news following the 2000 election and 9/11. I did not, however, rely on TV for any information, and still don't. The manipulation of images and events is so blatant in TV that I think you become less informed the more you watch it (and, in fact, a study following 9/11 and the invasion and occupation of Iraq did show that people who watched Fox (Faux) News regularly were less informed than people who didn't pay any attention to the news at all.)

In sum, I sought out many different viewpoints, compared them to my observations and to the most reliable news reporting I could conveniently find (mostly Newsweek and our local newspaper), and reflected on what I read, heard, experienced, and observed. I accepted the ideas that made sense and that were verified by situations, events, and history, and rejected those that did not, regardless of the source – and many of the ideas I've embraced come from conservative sources. Yet from that grew a deepening liberalism – because ultimately, that is where the best arguments lie.

*Standard note: I value dissenting opinions as crucial to the maintenance of freedom and democracy. While I would like to write convincingly, to influence opinion and sway the balance of power my way, I also consider the conservative viewpoint to be important and meaningful. I do, however, believe that political discourse does not have to be nasty and vicious. I prefer to listen to and respect my political opponents. I ask the same from them.

Can This Be True?

This clip is amazing and depressing. If true, it leaves me wondering if we now have a Bush III in office.

Think about it. The same policies as Bush; just under a new name - and, if this video is true (his awful budget is), taken to a greater extreme. Only this time, the guy who's making this stuff up is intelligent, articulate, and charismatic.

Scary.

I picked it up on a right-wing blog, so who knows? It's Rachel Maddow, though, not Rush, so I'm inclined to believe it.

Unfortunately.

A Disappointing Hundred Days

Cabinet choices: Loaded with old Clinton and Bush operatives. No significant new faces, no new ideas.

Foreign policy: Same old same old, just switching the focus from Iraq to Afghanistan. When do we concede that the Empire is unsustainable and start tearing it down before it falls down? At least we got a promise to close Gitmo.

LGBT issues: A proclamation making June Pride Month. A defense of DOMA. A promise to eliminate Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell, but it's still in place, and competent people are still being discharged because of their sexuality. When do words translate into action?

Budget: Total insanity. Not only same old same old, but now digging the hole faster and deeper. The worst budget ever?

War Department: Still spending more on weapons the rest of the world combined. What kind of karma are we making for ourselves?

Economy: Does anyone in Washington have a clue????

Health Care: Nothing yet.

When I voted for change, I voted for more than a change of tone and a figurehead who can say complex sentences competently.

Original Sin Redux

Yesterday I quoted John Taylor Gatto: “What constitutes a good life is clearly spelled out: self-knowledge, duty, responsibility, compassion, acceptance of loss, preparation for death.” Continuing my discussion from that post, I find it interesting that although Gatto writes in a conservative context when he talks about what constitutes the “good life,” I would call these liberal values. Conservatives feed on television and mindless religion, while liberals meditate and do yoga and dig deep for the Truth. Conservatives drive Hummers and Sequoias and buy slave-labor-made clothes at Walmart, liberals drive Priuses and bicycles and buy from local, independent stores. Conservatives contribute to libertarian think tanks that justify and promote the deregulation that unleashes corporate greed that hurts everyone, liberals contribute to food banks and the homeless. I see lots of old hippies wearing grey hair and wrinkles with pride, and Republican women coloring their hair and trying to look young. On and on.

It’s even worse at the social level. Republicans still refuse to take responsibility for torture, the invasion of Iraq, and the unregulated greed of the CEO’s (who are almost all Republican). They expressed their contempt for life and death by trying to keep Terry Schiavo’s body alive long after her brain had died. They refuse to accept the loss of our place in the world, and our duty to dismantle our empire.

And then I think that that assessment is simplistic – and that in practice, plenty of liberals share the same foibles. Really bad laws, like “No Child Left Behind” and the Patriot Act and the authorization to invade Iraq, received bipartisan support with the “liberal” side fully as enthusiastic as the conservative. It was the “liberal” justices who sided with the big corporation in saying that a private company could claim “eminent domain” and seize other private property from small owners – a travesty of justice in which it was actually Thomas and Scalia who dissented. Despite the actions and policies of Republicans and the consequences of their personal choices, conservatives do frequently claim those values – and sometimes live them. And liberals often do not live them.

Further, though I find the terms “good” and “evil” to be vague, evaluative, and more harmful than constructive, the basis on which Gatto speaks of them makes sense and translates into more useful and clear terms, such as “harmful” and “constructive.”

So I think the line between liberal and conservative is actually not narrow and clear, but wide and fuzzy – a vast grey area with personal choices that end up the same from either side. The reasoning and motivation may be different, but the values are often identical. The seeming wide gulf between us is a construct of the corporate media, which finds great value in keeping the American people divided, our energy wasted in battling against our neighbors rather than in working together to reestablish social equity and make sure our “leaders” are held accountable.

Perhaps one lesson is that integrity is the same, no matter what the religious or political philosophy behind it. Liberals and conservatives are the same: they either express integrity, wisdom, and compassion in each circumstance, or they don’t. And nobody gets it right – or wrong – every time.

Denial?

I lifted this vid from Long Walk to Green, a blog I found linked from, of all places, Opine. Long Walk to Green titled it, appropriately, "So Sad..."

I'd like to think this guy isn't typical for Republicans. He's griping about a measly five million dollars out of a huge transportation spending bill. Yet how can you get better bang for your buck than with bikes?

Our Xtracycle has made our car almost obsolete. Every day I ride past long lines of cars on my commute, and yet I'm pretty sure 70% to 80% of the commutes in my city are easily bikeable. Bikes use no greenhouse gas, no fossil fuel, and they cause very little wear and tear on roads. They park easily, almost anywhere.

This guy is dissing proven technology that does exactly what is proposed - why? Just because it's been around a long time? Or is it denial? Is his ExxonMobile stock falling?

Warren at the Inauguration

When I first heard that Pastor Rick Warren will issue the invocation at Obama's inauguration, I felt the slap that many of those in my LGBT community felt. However, I didn't respond right away. I didn't sign the petition demanding Obama withdraw that choice. Instead, I chose to delay my reaction until I'd had time to cool off and give it some thought. I'm glad I did, because Rev. Joseph Lowery is giving the benediction. Here's where my thoughts took me:

From the Mirriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

"Invocation: a prayer of entreaty (as at the beginning of a service of worship)."

"Benediction: the invocation of a blessing ; especially
: the short blessing with which public worship is concluded."

So Pastor Rick, the gay-hater, will offer a prayer of entreaty at the beginning, and Dr. Lowery, the civil-rights icon, will offer the blessing on this administration.

Frankly, I think there's more power in blessing than in entreaty, so these folks were set in the right order.

I am also impressed with the courage that this choice demonstrates. I believe Mr. Obama knew what he was doing, and the reaction he would get, by choosing Warren. The LGBT community gave him significant support during the election, and I like to think we made a difference. I think Obama thinks we did, too.

Yet he is making a conscious choice to risk offending us, by welcoming the "other half" of America to his inauguration.

Contrast this to his predecessor, who never gave so much as a nod to those he doesn't like.

It seems to me that many in my community are calling for a simple changing of sides. We've been marginalized for the last eight years by the presidential administration, and now we want to marginalize the other side while getting some progress on our own issues. We want business as usual, just switching roles.

Obama is sending a clear signal that he wants to change the game. He is actually going beyond words to actions that show he is serious when he talks of uniting, rather than dividing. That he does see one America.

And the truth is, he needs both sides to have a truly successful administration. The crises this nation faces are a lot more serious than ENDA and marriage equality. Obama has reached out to the other side, and shown a willingness to listen to them.

I don't have to like it. I don't have to listen. If I were going to the Inauguration, I could stand and turn my back when Mr. Warren takes the microphone. I would seriously consider doing so, and I support anyone who does. But my situation is far different from that of the President of the United States.

And thank God, it looks like we're finally going to get an adult in the White House.

Power and Racism

For about 30 years, I lived with and enjoyed privilege of which I was unaware. That privilege was white male privilege, and I took for granted that people would assume, in any social or economic interaction, that I was honest and worthy. When I walked the aisles of stores wearing a bulky coat, no one paid much attention. When I spoke to the tellers at banks, I barely had to show ID. When I applied for a job, I had full confidence that I would be assessed based completely on my competence and fitness for the job. I rarely hesitated to take the path to my destination I found most convenient, having confidence I would not be assaulted en route, even in a dark alley or midnight stairwell.

Gradually, I became aware that other people don't always have this experience. I witnessed the difficulty of a black woman to have her ID accepted at a bank. I noticed the way that store clerks or detectives watched black men in stores. I spent a very eye-opening pair of hours talking with a group of dark-skinned women in a Women of Color conference at the University. I read about hierarchical structures and the civil rights movement. I learned to recognize my own prejudices, acquired through assimilation into a dominant culture that is white and male. And I began my own transition.

Now the question has arisen, whether I consider the racist remarks of Rev. Jeremiah Wright as repugnant as the racism of David Duke, and Barack Obama's connection to that pastor as a warning bell of latent racist feeling.

Taken out of context, perhaps they are the same; but there is an inherent connection between power and racism. You cannot isolate racism without taking into account the power structure of the society that lies beneath it.

My ancestors owned the ancestors of Rev. Wright as if they were cattle. I've seen the photos of black men with their backs matted from neck to buttocks with scars from the whip. Slaves who ran away sometimes had their Achilles tendons cut, crippling them for life so that they could not run again. Or they were hanged. They were considered less than human – 3/5 human, to be precise. For two hundred and fifty years, this was their condition in America, and it was followed by another hundred years of Jim Crow oppression. Even today, a black man will spend ten times as much time in prison as a white man for possessing cocaine. He will be pulled over or stopped on the street for no reason beyond driving or running while black. Those are facts; you can look up the data if you like. That is simply the reality of our history, and to deny it or to assume that it has no affect on our current social structure is the height of naiveté.

(I'm not beating myself up over it. I never had a part in it, though, to my shame, I have at least twice observed racist actions without taking a stand against them – which is about as bad as participating. There aren't many people I admire more than Harriet Tubman.)

The power structure of our society is white and male. Again, look at our history. Women didn't even have the right to vote until the 1920's, just eighty years ago. We've had 43 presidents, and every one of them has been a white male. Even though white men constitute less than half of our population, they constitute the vast majority of our corporate CEO's and congressmen.

So when the country club puts up a sign that says "Whites Only," or "Men Only," it effectively shuts people of color and women off from access to power, to the policies and business agreements that affect their lives. It is oppression, and I find it repugnant.

On the other hand, when an American institution bars whites from membership to provide a safe place for a powerless group to organize and gather, can I honestly say that anyone is being barred from access to the power structures and economic activities that affect their lives?

I don't think so. The one is an attempt to prevent someone else from access to power, a means of stratifying society. The other is an attempt to gain power for oneself, a means of fighting for equality. I don't like it, and I believe it is not the most effective means, but it is not oppression.

It is this power differential that makes a comparison between the racist remarks of Rev. Wright and someone like David Duke irrelevant. They are completely different animals.

Which is not to say that I support Wright's views, or even fully understand them. I do not. It is only to say that I won't judge them by the same standard I would if they came from a white mouth. I won't line up the sheep with the cow to compare their meat and wool.

As for Barack Obama, I do not fear any aspect of racism from the man. He was hugely isolated from the very real though usually subtle racism that still permeates our society while he grew up in Hawaii, son of a white woman and an immigrant from Africa, and so did not assimilate those grievances with his mother's milk; at the same time, he has encountered and experienced racism in his work in places like Chicago, so he is not blind to it. While Obama sat in his pews, I suspect Rev. Wright spoke a whole lot more about black empowerment than white dismemberment, and since I'm all about empowering disempowered groups and individuals, I don't have a problem with that. I have not one iota of doubt that Mr. Obama will wield the power of the presidency with far more equality and even-handedness than his opponent would, and that he will judge people based on character over race far more reliably than Mr. McCain.

In short, I believe that Barack Obama, through his ancestry, heritage, and experience, is about as close as we're going to get to an ideal leader to finally break down the barrier of racism, bridge the gap between black and white, and bring Dr. King's vision to fruition. There are certainly positions of his with which I disagree – for instance, I don't think his health plan goes far enough, I'd like to see a commitment to cut the military budget by about three quarters, and I'd like to see him come out for marriage equality. Nevertheless, for the first time in my life, I will mark my ballot for president with joy, enthusiasm – and hope.

"How Did He Get Here?"

This question was answered by this comment from someone called "Black Diaspora" on Field Negro's blog. I copy it in its entirety here because I found it profound:

"Referring to Obama, a man in the audience at one of McCain's gatherings threw this question out as though it was a live grenade, and paused long enough to watch it explode over and [sic] appreciative crowd of Obama haters.

The question is at the heart of McCain's run for the White House where he watched his lead in certain key states see-saw, and finally trend in a direction that is favoring an electoral victory for Obama.

The man in the audience clearly understood the process whereby this black, inexperienced upstart was now challenging his party's nominee for the highest office of the land.

He understood, and so did the others in the audience.

But the man wasn't questioning the process, only the outcome of that process.

He understood that Obama, a black man, could not have reached his current pinnacle without the help (and votes) of many whites.

Sure blacks had voted for him as well, but in no way would that have allowed Obama to beat the Clinton machine and capture the biggest plum in politicaldom--the nomination of a major political party, and only a November election away from the presidency.

I believe the man felt betrayed. He felt betrayed by a those whites in society who ignored a longstanding understanding in this country that stated it's okay for a black man to try, but it's not okay for him to be taken seriously; he's not supposed to get this far.

He's not supposed to be competing this sucessfully with a white man (He should have been stopped long before now.), and doing it with the help and support of other whites.

What twist of fate brought this possibility, this calamity upon us--that a black man may win the White House, and do so by defeating a white man, a POW, and war hero at that.

It's almost as though some unspoken agreement had been violated, some tacit rule had been broken, some holy icon shattered--that the likes of an Obama would be allowed to enjoy so much political success in this country.

You could hear the plea in his question: we're the heir apparents; we're the rightful owners; we're the ones this country was made for.

And you knew, whether Obama becomes president or not, something unacceptable, and almost hidden, has besieged this country--a disquieting realization that time did not stand still, that what was true is no longer true, that America has changed, it's not the country of our forefathers, black or white, and not the nation of a privileged few, but the nation of a new generation of Americans willing to blaze new trails, and flirt with new beginnings.

Yes, "How did we get here?" "

I'd like to claim my part in the "new generation" Black Diaspora spoke of, and further, in eight years and one hundred days, I hope that President Obama is replaced by a woman.

Leadership

Judging by this measure of leadership, Barack Obama should be our next president. NOT John McCain.

A New Low for the RSM

We live in interesting times – markets crashing, the specter of extremist Islamic terrorism, and the first African-American presidential candidate of a major party leading in the polls. We also have a long history of violence, racism, assassinations, and domestic terrorism, such as. So I feel a particular disgust with the rhetoric recently coming out of the McCain camp and the Republican Smear Machine equating Barack Obama with terrorism.

This is a tactic that would be disgusting if we had a history entirely devoid of violence and racism. But given our history – given the Birmingham church bombing that killed four young girls back in 1963; given the assassinations of Martin Luther King, JFK, RFK, and even the attempt at Ronald Reagan's life; given the long history of lynchings and the Ku Klux Klan; and given the understandable national reaction to the extreme terrorist attack of 9/11, this goes beyond disgusting. It is, whether intentionally or not, incitement to violence. Members of the Republican Party are provoking an assassination attempt on a candidate for president of the United States.

Perhaps it's just habit, going back to the successful race-baiting tactics of Lee Atwater, through the more recent lies of the Swift Boat campaign. But McCain's strategists are intelligent, careful, and experienced at manipulating voters and the public. I have a hard time believing they don't know what they're doing. They should be aware that 9/11 and the color of Mr. Obama's skin change everything.

McCain and Palin are currently conducting a campaign that is without honor. It is vile. It is unworthy of a veteran and war hero of this nation.

It seems that Mr. McCain is becoming aware of that. I just hope that he can defuse the situation before it becomes something he cannot control at all.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama, please – keep your head down. Wear a bullet-proof vest everywhere you go.

My prayers for your safety go with you.

Marriage Equality Revisited

By request, I've come back to this subject. I'll probably come back to it again.

In the recent presidential and vice-presidential debates, the issue of marriage equality has come up. I heard Joe Biden say he was against it, but was for making some second-class institution that would assure same-sex couples have the same rights as different-sex couples – a sort of separate-but-equal system like the school systems of the past that ensured white schools were more equal than black schools. (I'm paraphrasing here.) Sarah Palin came right back by stating that she's tolerant, too, and she's for all that separate-but-equal stuff, too, but frankly, given her past record and the things she's said, I think she was flat-out lying.

To me, that is not marriage equality. Sarah Palin's pale attempt at 'tolerance' is unconvincing and inadequate. Joe Biden's position doesn't address the inequities of the current system adequately, either. Obama's position is especially troubling, as he must be in contact with many black people who suffered under the old Jim Crow laws.

When I say I'd like marriage equality, I mean just that. The law applies to all people the same, equally, without difference, regardless of what the Bible or the dictionary say. After all, we're not a theocracy. The Constitution was written as a secular document for a reason. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified for a reason. That reason is a vision of a nation of free people who can choose to live life according to their conscience and convictions, without tyranny from either despots, or the majority.

'Nuff said.

Laura Bush

My mom sent me a printout of this article from Salon.com. It's by a woman who calls herself liberal, but who has great admiration for Laura Bush. I didn't find my own esteem of Ms. Bush affected in the same way. Instead, I felt deepening bewilderment and sadness about her.

The author lists a lot of interesting and admirable traits about Laura's life. She talks about Laura's "integrity, unpretentiousness and intelligence." My confusion stems from trying to reconcile this with the fact that she continues to sleep in the same bed with a man who, confronted with the proof of conspiracy to commit treason by Cheney, Rove, and Libby, yet refused to ask even for anyone's resignation, much less prosecution; who ordered the invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation without cause, and lied to get the authorization for it; who blatantly broke the FISA law; who allowed or ordered torture of perceived enemies, some of who are innocent, in direct violation of the Geneva Convention; who commissioned a study on global warming, and then swept the study under the rug when the conclusion came that human-caused global climate change threatens the future of the planet, mankind, and our children; who refused to hold anyone accountable (except underlings who were themselves victims) when the crimes of Abu Ghraib and others came to light – and she has, to my knowledge, still spoken not one word of protest against those acts.

I think of the quote from Martin Luthur King, Jr., that is permanently posted on the left column of this blog.

Other people of integrity have chosen to at least resign their positions, as a number of diplomats in the US and officials in the UK did following the invasion of Iraq. I find these people admirable and understandable.

Laura Bush, however, appears to hold a great deal of power. Apparently George holds her in great esteem. Yet I have seen nothing to indicate that she has ever spoken out against him, even in private; nor has she taken any action, such as removing herself from the White House until and unless he changes his policies. She continues to live with, and apparently sleep with and condone, a war criminal.

Ms. Sittenfield says Laura Bush is a role model for Americans. I respectfully disagree. The First Lady's refusal to take any action against her husband's criminal and cowardly acts and his policies that damage and disgrace the American society, people, and environment is not worthy of emulation. It is, at best, abdication of responsibility.

My confusion grows, however, when I think about what I would do if the war criminal were someone I loved – if it were Kristin, or Trinidad, or my brother. I'm not sure I would do differently, though I hope I would; but I'm not putting myself up as a role model, either. I don't know whether she's taken George to task privately; whether his recent quiescence has been caused her influence, or the naked evidence of his failed policies, or both. I don't know enough to judge her, and couldn't do so fairly in any case. She is human, and is acting in response to her needs.

I just know that I feel deeply saddened and confused by her situation, and I am very grateful I don't have to deal with the conflict between love and loyalty, and integrity and compassion that she faces.