As American as cherry pie

Mde from my photos of cherries, red pepper, night sky, rose, narcissus, and squash.

Beware Bad Beginnings

In the fall of my senior year in college, I went on my very first "real" job interview for a post college job, with a very prestigious consulting firm. I expected that at the end of the day, I would either be thrilled because I had a job offer, or seriously bummed because I didn't. But it didn't work out that way.

The company made me a job offer, and then pressured me strongly to accept it on the spot, which I didn't feel I could do. After all, it was only October, it was my first interview, and I'd barely started to look. In the end, they gave me the weekend to think it over (the interview was on a Friday). I didn't take the job then, but we agreed to talk again in the spring. I eventually accepted the job.

And spent the next 2 years feeling manipulated and used. You see, the way they made job offers was the way they treated their employees -- badly, peremptorily. The way one does something, whether it is a person or an organization, is likely the way it does anything and everything.

And so it is with the Bush administration. They stole the 2000 and 2004 elections, and continued with their pattern of lawlessness, from lying about the reasons for going to war, to outing a CIA agent whose husband spoke out against those lies, to attempting to use the Justice Dept. to steal elections, to illegally spying on American citizens, and on and on. You know the litany.

Beware a bad beginining -- people are always, always, always showing and telling you who they are.

DIng Dong, Wofie's Gone!

Say it with me, folks:

"May the hearts and minds of those in power be turned to the good of the earth and its people, or may they be removed from power immediately and permanently."

2 in 2 days... Maybe it's picking up steam...

Failing by Example - New York Times

Friedman here connects the dots between the fact that the Bushies did their damnedest to purge Democrats from the US Government, while saying that Sunnis and Shias have to govern jointly in Iraq. Can you say hypocrisy? I can, and so can Friedman.

But the deeper point is this: if you don't believe at a really deep level in what you're doing, and don't, therefore, act out of that belief, it won't work. For W, that's about putting politics and winning above the country, whether that's the US or Iraq. For a mom, it might mean telling her kids to eat their vegetables while only eating pasta. The kids won't eat their vegetables.

Failing by Example - New York Times

Failing by Example

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: May 16, 2007

If you want to know why we are losing in Iraq, go back and read this story that ran on the front page of The Times on Saturday. It began like this:

“Two years ago, Robin C. Ashton, a seasoned criminal prosecutor at the Department of Justice, learned from her boss that a promised promotion was no longer hers. ‘You have a Monica problem,’ Ms. Ashton was told. Referring to Monica M. Goodling, a 31-year-old, relatively inexperienced lawyer who had only recently arrived in the office, the boss added, ‘She believes you’re a Democrat and doesn’t feel you can be trusted.’ Ms. Ashton’s ouster — she left for another Justice Department post two weeks later — was a critical early step in a plan that would later culminate in the ouster of nine United States attorneys last year.

“Ms. Goodling would soon be quizzing applicants for civil service jobs at Justice Department headquarters with questions that several United States attorneys said were inappropriate, like who was their favorite president and Supreme Court justice. One department official said an applicant was even asked, ‘Have you ever cheated on your wife?’ Ms. Goodling also moved to block the hiring of prosecutors with résumés that suggested they might be Democrats, even though they were seeking posts that were supposed to be nonpartisan.”

What does this have to do with Iraq? A lot. One benchmark the Bush team has been urging the Iraqi government to meet is to rescind its broad “de-Baathification” program — the wholesale purging of Baathists after the fall of Saddam — which has alienated many Sunnis and hampered national reconciliation.

But while the Bush team has been lecturing the Iraqi Shiites to limit de-Baathification in Baghdad, it was carrying out its own de-Democratization in the Justice Department in Washington. We would feel that we had failed in Iraq if we read that Sunnis were being purged from Iraq’s Ministry of Justice by Shiite hard-liners loyal to Moktada al-Sadr — but the moral equivalent of that is exactly what the Bush administration was doing here. What kind of example does that set for Iraqis?

And this wasn’t only a Washington problem. Read Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s outstanding “Imperial Life in the Emerald City,” which details the extent to which Americans recruited to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad were chosen, at times, for their loyalty toward Republicanism rather than expertise on Islamism. “Two C.P.A. staffers said that they were asked if they supported Roe v. Wade and if they had voted for George W. Bush,” he wrote.

But this degree of partisanship — loyalty over competence — was destructive in a much bigger way. It also deprived the Bush team of the support it needed when things in Iraq didn’t turn out to be as easy as it expected.

Only a united America could have the patience and fortitude to heal a divided Iraq — and we simply don’t have that today. Why? Because George Bush and Dick Cheney asked everyone to check their politics at the door when it came to Iraq, because victory there was so important — everyone but themselves. They argued that the war in Iraq was the central front of the central struggle of our age — an unusual war, a war against terrorism and the pathologies that produce it — but then they indulged in the most rancid politics as usual at home.

They actually thought they could unite Iraq, while dividing America.

Whenever Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney had a choice between seeking political advantage at home or acting in a bipartisan fashion to buy more unity, time and space to do all the heavy lifting needed in Iraq, they opted for political advantage.

When Franklin Roosevelt fought World War II, he made a conservative Republican, Henry Stimson, his secretary of war and did all he could to hold the country together. The Bush- Cheney team, by contrast, summoned us to D-Day and then treated it like it was just another political wedge issue, whenever it suited them.

It has not worked. As Leon Wieseltier, literary editor of The New Republic, put it: “You cannot govern like Winston Churchill some of the time and like Grover Norquist most of the time.”

Democrats need to be careful, though, that they don’t let their rage with the hypocrisy of Mr. Bush make them totally crazy, and blind them to the fact that they — we — still need a credible plan to deal with the very real threat to open societies posed by Islamist terrorism. But I understand that rage. After all, who can ask more soldiers to sacrifice their lives in Iraq for an administration that wouldn’t even sacrifice its politics?

Ding, Dong, Fallwell's Gone

Okay, I feel a little gulty about this, but the truth is that the news of Jerry Falwell's death did cheer me up a bit. Like I said, I'm not proud of it. On theother hand, if his absence helps the world heal, then it's a good thing. And I believe each of us chooses when to go.

They think he died of a heart problem -- I'm not sure he had a heart (See http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10806.html), which would, of course, qualify.

To distract myself every time I'm tempted to gloat, I say the following prayer:

"May the hearts and minds of those in power be turned to the good of the earth and its people, or may they be removed from power immediately and permanently."

I do this prayer at least once a day, often many times a day. Do you think it helped?

How to Donate to help those hurt by Hurricane katrina

Here are a few links:

American Red Cross www.redcross.org
Salvation Army www.salvationarmy.org
Noahs Wish www.noahswish.org
Operaton Blessing www.ob.org/programs/disaster_relief/news/2005/dr_2005_0824_katrina.asp

I have not checked these out personally, but the Red Cross and Salvation have been there for us in disasters for many decades. Noah's Wish supports animals in natural disasters. Operation Blessing exists only to serve and support those in disasters. Please check them out for yourself before donating.

GOPD (Grand Old Personality Disorder) - House G.O.P. Acts to Protect Chief

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV, the bible of psychologists, people with antisocial personality disorder can be described as follows:

Antisocial Personality Disorder (301.7)

No superego or conscious (no sense of right and wrong)
Willing to Lie
Not bound by Social Norms
Can be pleasant/polished/slick
Possible criminal record
Potential for Violence
Impulsive
Enjoys humiliating and demeaning others

Further, according to a website interpreting this for lay people:

"You are unbending and inflexible and cannot adjust your behavior to the needs of a particular situation, activity, or relationship."

The behavior is long-standing and is not caused by another chronic or recurrent psychiatric disorder, by a medical condition, or by substance use.

Having a personality disorder means you are not the kind of person who can adapt smoothly to the normal give-and-take of everyday life. Instead, you expect the world and people to change for you rather than being able to adjust to the requirements of different situations and relationship. You behave in a rigid and inflexible way that perpetuates vicious cycles and fulfills your worst prophecies.

Having a closed mind means that you misperceive or filter out new information that does not support your expectations. Then you act in a way that elicits just those responses from others that will make your negative expectations a reality. You generally do not take responsiblity for your own life and feelings, instead you tend to blame others. You lack sufficient coping mechanisms to be adaptive and deal with everyday problems and stressors. Having a personality disorder means that you get in the same fix over and over again and can never figure out quite why or how. Pesonality Disorders create stormy relationships and unfulfilled hopes and dreams.

Does the house GOP have a collective personality disorder?


House G.O.P. Acts to Protect Chief

November 18, 2004
By CARL HULSE





WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 - Spurred by an investigation connected
to the majority leader, House Republicans voted Wednesday
to abandon an 11-year-old party rule that required a member
of their leadership to step aside temporarily if indicted.

Meeting behind closed doors, the lawmakers agreed that a
party steering committee would review any indictments
handed up against the majority leader, Representative Tom
DeLay of Texas, or any other members of the leadership team
or committee chairmen, to determine if giving up a post was
warranted. The revision does not change the requirement
that leaders step down if convicted.

The new rule was adopted by voice vote. Its chief author,
Representative Henry Bonilla of Texas, said later that only
a handful of members had opposed it.

The Republicans' old rule was adopted in August 1993 to put
a spotlight on the legal troubles of prominent Democrats.
Mr. Bonilla said revising it had been necessary to prevent
politically inspired criminal investigations by "crackpot"
prosecutors from determining the fate of top Republicans.

"Attorneys tell me you can be indicted for just about
anything in this country, in any county or community," said
Mr. Bonilla, an ally of Mr. DeLay. "Sometimes district
attorneys who might have partisan agendas or want to read
their name in the paper could make a name for themselves by
indicting a member of the leadership, regardless of who it
may be, and therefore determine their future. And that's
not right."

Mr. DeLay said he had not instigated the change. But he
applauded it nevertheless, saying it could deprive
"political hacks" of an ability to influence the makeup of
the Republican leadership.

Republican lawmakers "fixed the rules so that Democrats
cannot use our rules against us," he said.

Mr. DeLay said he did not expect to be indicted, but added,
"This has nothing to do with whether I was going to be or
not going to be.''

The comments of Mr. DeLay and Mr. Bonilla were clearly
directed at Ronnie Earle, the district attorney in Travis
County, Tex., including Austin, who won indictments earlier
this year against three political associates of the
majority leader. The investigation by Mr. Earle, a
Democrat, involves charges of illegally using corporate
money to help Republicans win state legislative races in
2002. Those Republican victories in turn gave the state
party enough legislative muscle to win redistricting
changes that helped Congressional Republicans gain five
additional seats in Texas on Nov. 2.

Despite the indictments of his associates, Mr. DeLay has
not been called to testify, and Mr. Earle has not said
whether the congressman is a target.

Not all Republicans agreed with Wednesday's rule change,
which was adopted after some two and a half hours of
debate.

"This is a mistake," said Representative Christopher Shays
of Connecticut.

When the Republicans gained control of the House in the
elections of 1994, "we were going to be different,'' Mr.
Shays said.

But "every time we start to water down what we did in '94,"
he said, "we are basically saying the revolution is losing
its character."

Democrats and outside watchdogs bitterly criticized the
change.

"Today Republicans sold their collective soul to maintain
their grip on power," said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of
Maryland, the Democratic whip. "They unabashedly abandoned
any pretense of holding themselves to a high ethical
standard, by deciding to ignore criminal indictments of
their leaders as reason for removal from leadership posts
in the Republican Party."

Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a group that
follows campaign finance issues, said: "With this decision,
we have gone from DeLay being judged by his peers to DeLay
being judged by his buddies. It's an absurd and ludicrous
new rule and an affront to the American people."

Republicans said Democrats had no standing to criticize
them, since House Democratic rules have no provision to
remove indicted party leaders, though they do require
indicted committee chairmen to step aside. The minority
leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, said
Wednesday that her party would quickly expand the provision
to cover leadership posts as well.

"Republicans have reached a new low," Ms. Pelosi said. "It
is absolutely mind-boggling that as their first order of
business following the elections, House Republicans have
lowered the ethical standards for their leaders."

The change follows two admonitions that Mr. DeLay received
from the bipartisan House ethics committee this fall, one
involving a House floor vote, the other a fund-raiser. Mr.
DeLay has built strong loyalty in the House over the years
by helping raise campaign money and paying close attention
to the personal legislative interests of Republican
lawmakers, and the ethics committee's action angered some
of his supporters in the chamber.

Mr. DeLay and many other House Republicans have criticized
Mr. Earle's inquiry as highly partisan. "Ronnie Earle is
trying to criminalize politics," Mr. DeLay said. "I think
that is wrong."

Mr. Earle, in a statement issued by his office, said the
Republican rule change would have no effect on the
continuing investigation. But he added, "It should be
alarming to the public to see their leaders substitute
their judgment for that of the law enforcement process."

House Republicans did not dispute the idea that the change
had been brought on by the events in Texas but said most of
the majority's lawmakers had also concluded that the rule
was simply unfair.

"In my sincere opinion, it only provoked the timing" of the
change, Representative Trent Franks of Arizona said of the
Texas inquiry. "When you look at the rule, it is an
outrageous rule."

The new rule says that upon the return of an indictment
against a committee chairman, a subcommittee chairman or a
party leader, a steering committee made up of House leaders
other than the accused lawmaker will have 30 days to
recommend to the full Republican conference "what action,
if any, the conference shall take concerning said member."

Though the change had been a subject of discussion for the
last week, it was not submitted by Mr. Bonilla until right
before a Tuesday deadline that Republicans had set to offer
proposals for rules in the new Congress. Mr. Bonilla and
others said the Republican conference, including many
members elected only two weeks ago, had been insistent on
the revision.

"It is the right thing to do," said Representative John
Carter of Texas, a former judge.

While House Republicans were acting on the rule, Congress
continued its reorganization for 2005. House Democrats and
Senate Republicans re-elected their leadership teams for
the most part. In the only real race, Senator Elizabeth
Dole of North Carolina gained a one-vote victory over
Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota to head the National
Republican Senatorial Committee, which provides guidance
and money for Republican candidates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/18/politics/18house.html?ex=1101842267&ei=1&en=3a93f3d75f46f104

Where are you not speaking up? To whom are you not listening?

If the world is our mirror, then as a group, there must be a lot of us who don't feel we are worth being heard (see "Ohio hearings show massive GOP vote manipulation", posted below). If we all insisted on speaking up as a regular practice, then maybe we couldn't be stopped from voting.

Or maybe we're not listening too well, to allow others not to be heard, to feel that it is more important to have our way in the short run, with sullen cooperation, and underground or passive resistance in the long run, than to allow a real conversation to allow everyone to be heard, and to get to the truth. In my experience, when we all everyone to be heard, we come to some surprising conclusions, which generally turn out to be workable.

So even if you're not in Ohio or Florida or New Mexico, you can still help prevent vote fraud on the internal planes. Ask your self:

Where am I not speaking up?
Who am I not listening to?

Hollis

Harvey Wasserman of www.freepress.org wonders:

Ohio hearings show massive GOP vote manipulation, but where the hell are the Democrats
& John Kerry?

November 17, 2004

Columbus, Ohio---Hour after hour the testimonies are the same: angry Ohioans telling
of vicious Republican manipulation and de facto intimidation that disenfranchised
tens of thousands and probably cost the Democrats the election.

At an African-American church on Saturday and then at the Franklin County Courthouse
Monday night, more than 700 people came to testify and witness to tales of the atrocity
that was the November 2 election.

Organized by local ad hoc groups, the hearings had a court reporter and a team of
lawyers along with other appointed witnesses. At freepress.org we will be making
the testimonies available as they're transcribed and organized, and we will present
a fuller accounting of the hearings, along with a book that includes the transcripts.

But one thing was instantly and abundantly clear: the Republican Party turned Ohio
2004 into an updated version of the Jim Crow South.

The principle overt method of vote suppression was to short-change inner city precincts
of sufficient voting machines to allow a timely balloting. In precinct after precinct,
virtually all of them predominantly black, poor, young and Democratic, the lines
stretched for two, five, eight, even eleven hours. The elderly and infirm were forced
to stand in the rain while city officials threatened to tow their cars. No chairs
or shelter were provided. Crucial signage was mysteriously missing. Thousands came
to vote, saw the long lines and left.

How many thousands? Enough to turn the election? Almost definitely.

None of this was accidental. This was a well-planned GOP attack on the right to
vote, and on Democratic candidacies. Republican Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell
was also co-chair of the Ohio campaign for Bush. A right-wing Republican was in
charge of the Franklin County Board of Elections.

They all said the election went "smoothly." By their standards they were
right. At least 68 voting machines sat in a warehouse while precinct managers called
desperately for help. Republican precinct judges and challengers harassed would-be
voters. The names of long-time activists mysteriously disappeared from registration
lists. The arsenal of dirty tricks was virtually endless.

With it the Bush/Rove team deprived countless Ohioans of their right to vote just
as surely as if they'd levied a poll tax or invoked the grandfather clause.

In the coming days we'll issue a more complete accounting of these devastating hearings.
No one who cares about democracy and fears the consequences of its destruction could
come away from them without being both infuriated and terrified.

But one thing also stood out---the complete lack of Democratic support for these
hearings or for the larger vote count movement. Nationally, it all stands in the
shadow of the complete disappearance of John Kerry, on whose nominal behalf this
was done.

A successful grassroots effort involving the Green and Libertarian Parties, among
others, has raised---in just four days---some $150,000 to force a recount of the
Ohio vote. (Ralph Nader has forced a similar recount in New Hampshire). But where
were the countless millions raised by the Democratic Party and Kerry campaign by
trusting American citizens who expected them to fight for democracy?

Right up to election day Kerry repeated his solemn vow to, in light of what happened
in Florida 2000, guarantee everyone's right to vote. But now that another highly
dubious election has occurred, where the hell is he?

Rumors are circulating that he is biding his time, waiting for the right time to
jump in. Or that the Democrats themselves have something to hide. Or that there's
a magic bullet just waiting to be fired.

Similar rumors spread about Al Gore four years ago. We're still waiting for that
fateful shot.

This election was not about apathy. Tens of thousands of smart, eager, fiercely
dedicated volunteers came out this year, desperate to rid this nation of the curse
of George W. Bush.

An escalating avalanche of evidence indicates a true vote count would have thrown
Bush out of the White House.

But once again, the Democrats have dissed the grassroots. Once again, a candidate
who promised democracy has disappeared with barely a whimper in the face of those
who would destroy it. His silence has allowed an orgy of media bloviation in homage
to a bigoted, war-crazed America that, if it won at all, took this election not
by national consensus, but by the Rovian staples of dirty tricks and voter suppression.

The upcoming Ohio recount is fraught with danger. The Republicans battled successfully
to prevent the state's voting machines from including paper trails that can be reasonably
recounted. These "black boxes" will require extreme sophistication to
be properly evaluated. Unless intensely supervised down to the last detail, the
Republicans who control these machines will turn this recount into a "proof"
that the election "went smoothly."

So a true recount will require serious additional financial resources and a very
aggressive, well-organized team. So far we hear not a peep from the mainstream Democrats.
So far, they seem utterly deaf to the cries of fury and despair from those who were
so wrongly deprived of their right to vote.

Democracy itself was lynched in Ohio on November 2, by both high and low tech means.
Our freedoms may be the ultimate victim. But where is the Democratic Party?

-------------------------
HARVEY WASSERMAN'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES is available through www.harveywasserman.com.
He is senior editor of www.freepress.org.