I'll never forget a great line of Gene Hackman's in the movie The Heist: "they are young dumb and full of cum." The line reminds me of what military recruiters look out for when finding recruits. And sadly, I was once that same type that volunteered back during Vietnam.

These recruits, many of whom from the lower socio economic class, wind up either dead or maimed. Those lucky enough to return are forced to fight a VA bureaucracy for help, not unlike vets in my era of Vietnam had to do.

I am happy to see that these military recruiters are not welcomed in all of our neighborhoods. I see New York City is taking some action.

BTW, one easy solution to the recruiting problem: Washington ought to wage only just and necessary wars. Folks would line up to volunteer. End of problem.

Way back in 1848, the Boston Public Library became the first publicly supported municipal library in America. Imagine what a joy that was for the residents of Boston to check out books free of charge to read in the comfort of their home.

Could you imagine the response today’s conservatives would have had to that news if they were living in Boston back then? I wonder what would have been said if they had conservative talk radio?

I could hear the argument now: “Libraries, ha! since when is government in the business of supplying books for people? What next, libraries with tables and chairs like at home?” The cries of “nanny state” would have been heard throughout the city.

Couldn’t you easily imagine the tirade of the 19th century version of Rush Limbaugh: “Think of the cost of one of these places. You have to hire folks to run them, and if you think the library lovers will stop with only one library in Boston, think again. Oh no my friends, they will want one in each town and city across the country.”

But as dumb as the anti-government gang are, they have, to some extent, successfully created an image of those arguing for government involvement as weak kneed, bed-wetting liberals in need of a nanny to make things all better.

To be sure, many hair brained laws have been introduced by well meaning legislators which have given their critics lots of ammunition. For example, In Illinois, Democratic state legislator Ken Dunkin has introduced a bill that would make texting while crossing the street a misdemeanor. Needless to say, talk radio picked it up and ran with it.

But to lump the absurd in with serious problems such as the disregard for the health, welfare and safety of our citizenry by corporate America is outrageous.

Take for example our food industry. Anytime a peep is mentioned about laws regulating food, the cries start. Words like food fascist, food police, diet dictators, tea totaling do gooders resurface.

It is as if panic set in. Like there is a phobia to nannyism. But who is panicking. The public? No. I don’t see mass demonstrations against the nanny state. I see no mothers demanding their children should not be denied of a Whopper or Big-Mac. I see no community meetings on how to prevent the nanny state from closing down the local Burger King.

The fact is that those panicking are not Jane and Joe six-pack. Those in panic mode are the fast food corporate board rooms and the hired guns they buy to push this ruse of the nanny state.

This is where folks like Rick Berman enter the picture. Berman, a Washington lobbyist works to protect the food and restaurant industries annual profits of $500 billion.

Berman runs the Center for Consumer Freedom that is financed by the food and restaurant industry. CCF’s 2005 IRS return states that Berman works 23 hours a week for the group for which he is paid $18,000. Also, he is the sole owner of Berman & Co., which sponsors many front groups that defend his corporate clients’ interests by attacking their critics, allowing his paying clients to remain out of public view.

According to a July 31, 2006, profile of Berman in USA Today, his company has 28 employees and takes in $10 million dollars a year, but “only Berman and his bookkeeper wife” know how much of the $10 million ends up in their own pockets.

To give you an idea of how well financed his group is, in April of 2005, after a report in a leading medical journal cast doubt on several assumptions about obesity, he pounced. His group ran $600,000 worth of full-paged adds in 6 different newspapers, gloating that the study showed that obesity was not an “epidemic” but rather a lot of hype.

Records show that in 2002 contributors to the group were not concerned citizens worried about the nanny state but large corporations protecting their profits: Coca-Cola, Wendy’s and Tyson Foods, each of which gave $200,000. Cargill gave $100,000, according to the documents, and Outback Steakhouse gave $164,600.

Dr. David Ludwig, director of the obesity program at Children’s Hospital in Boston and an occasional target of Mr. Berman’s group, summed up the CCF well: “They make a lot of noise, but nobody in academia takes their arguments seriously, they stand for food industry freedom, not consumer freedom.”

The folks in the corporate offices want you to believe that today the nanny state will regulate your food, smoking and drinking, and tomorrow it will be something else. Soon we will all be goose stepping to the new liberal fascism. To that I say hogwash! I have confidence in folks to make sound decisions, especially if they ignore the corporate whores who will sing any song for the big bucks.

Mia Farrow wears a very special amulet around her neck. No, it’s not some expensive piece that many of the Hollywood types adorn themselves with. it’s a simple piece that was given to her by an African woman who survived the ongoing genocide in Darfur. Her village was burned, and three of her five children were slaughtered. Her baby was torn from her arms and bayoneted. As the humble mother gave the amulet to Farrow, she clasped her two hands and said, “tell people what is happening here. Tell the people we will be slaughtered. Tell them we need help.” Farrow replied softly, “I am trying.”

Farrow, an actress and UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador, is doing exactly that. In fact, she has gotten right to the heart of the matter. With the organization Dream for Darfur, she has spoken out against the government of China, which is both the main business partner and supplier of weapons to the perpetrators of the genocide in Darfur- the Sudanese government in Khartoum. Most alarming to Farrow, however, is how US corporations have cozied up to the Chinese butchers, who are hosting the Olympics in 2008.

While Chinese weapons and money are helping add to the already 250,000 men, women and children slaughtered in Darfur, 19 US corporations are sponsors of the Olympic hosts. Dream For Darfur is making every effort to expose the shameless sponsorship by these corporations. First they asked the sponsors to sign on to the following very mildly worded letter entitled Olympic Corporate Sponsors Pledge: In light of the unique relationship our esteemed Olympic host has with the government in Sudan, and in our role as friends and supporters of the Chinese government, we pledge to urge the Chinese government to utilize its position to help Khartoum consent to a true international civilian protection operation for Darfur and a good-faith peace process well before the August 2008 start of the games.

None of the 19 signed. In November, Dreams for Darfur released a report card, giving grades to the corporations responses to the genocide: Here are the shameful results: 13 Fs: Atos Origin, Lenovo, Manulife, Panasonic, Samsung, and Swatch all failed to address the issue of Darfur and the Olympics whatsoever:. Anheuser-Busch, BHP Billiton, Kodak, Microsoft, Staples, Visa and Volkswagen also received failing grades, even though all of these companies espouse commitments to social responsibility. Three Ds: Coca-Cola, Johnson & Johnson, & UPS earned only 10 points. Two Cs: McDonald’s and Adidas barely passed. McDonald’s received credit for contacting the IOC and Adidas for contacting the German Foreign Ministry. One C+: General Electric (GE) earned the highest grade because it contacted the International Olympic Committee (IOC) about the crisis in Darfur, provided a point person, and has provided aid. (In addition to GE and McDonald’s, a third company contacted the IOC, but did not want this reported for attribution.

So far many of the sponsors have refused to budge; it’s business as usual, re enforcing the long held belief by many that business as usual means profits are more important than the security and well being of people. Look for bolder action to be taken by Dreams for Darfur and the many other organizations which are trying to end the genocide in Darfur.

In this era of "cameras everywhere," it is absurd that in the one place they should be they're not-- the Supreme Court. Think of the monumental decisions the court has made throughout history: Marbury v. Madison, Dred Scott v. Sanford, Brown v. Board of Education, and in more recent days, Gideon v. Wainright and Roe v. Wade. Shouldn't we who have the world's most open democracy have the right to view these important proceedings? Shouldn't we be able to witness it ourselves and not rely on second hand information? And shouldn't we be allowed to see the ability of our judges so they will be accountable for their actions on the court?

My dear late French grandfather who was smart but unschooled use to tell me democracy was about letting it all hang out. Translated, he meant no secrets or closed door deals. Although same day audio tapes are available of some Supreme Court high public profile cases, it is unfair not to have both easy video and audio access to all cases. If we can view everything from gavel to gavel coverage of both Houses of Congress to local mundane meetings dealing with removing snow and granting liquor licenses, shouldn't we be able to view all important debates by our nation's highest court?

Second, In an age of highly partisan media, I don't want to rely on second hand information. With easy access to the court, I can get the information from the most reliable source-- me. I don't need someone from either left or right subjectively analyzing and explaining a decision for me; I want the facts with no left or right spin.

Lastly, justices have life tenure on the court. Some have stayed on the court in poor health and very old age. For example, The Washington Post had an alarming report about the health of the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist: "Rehnquist withheld details when he was hospitalized in 1981. At the time, a hospital spokesman said Rehnquist experienced a 'disturbance in mental clarity' after he abruptly stopped taking a powerful sleeping aid for his chronic back pain." Telecasts of the justices in ill health or old age could put pressure on them to step down. Television would be a check on their life long tenure standing.

In order for a democracy to be healthy and strong, it is imperative to have open government, to judge it from our own perspective and to hold accountable the actions of those in charge. The Supreme Court, whose decision profoundly affect us, ought not be exempt from opening their doors to cameras. We the taxpayers fund them, and it is our right to watch them at work.

The on going controversy regarding waterboarding brings back memories of a conversation I had some 40 years ago in a Bangkok bar with an Army infantry Lieutenant who was on R&R -rest and relaxation- from heavy combat duty in Vietnam. I, at the time, was a 20-year-old Airman on a three day pass form Utapao Air Force Base in Southern Thailand.

His name was Turk, a strikingly handsome tan young man of 27 with a very edgy and nervous look, a tip that he was suffering already from his experiences in Nam. Further, he sat with his back against the wall and near the door of the peaceful bar in which we were seated; his eyes nervously darted to all those coming and going.

One story that stuck out all these years was Turk’s “water torture story.” He spoke of turning a couple of pow’s over to a Vietnamese unit. He spoke of how this Vietnamese commander had a large container of water and proceeded to do to the prisoners exactly what we now know as waterboarding.” I could not watch”, said Turk.” It was ruthless.”

Apparently other higher ups during Vietnam agreed. Water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam 40 years ago. A photograph that appeared in The Washington Post of a U.S. soldier involved in water boarding a North Vietnamese prisoner in 1968 led to that soldier’s severe punishment. Earlier in 1901, the United States had taken a similar stand against water boarding during the Spanish-American War when an Army major was sentenced to 10 years of hard labor for water boarding an insurgent in the Philippines.

I wish Mitt Romney and the other chicken-hawks at the CNN Republican debate who seemed to cavalierly think that waterbording is no big deal could have experienced my conversation with Turk that nite. I wish they could have seen Turk’s eyes and body language while describing the procedure.

Fortunately, one man, Senator John McCain, who has experienced the hell of torture and combat lit into Chicken -Hawk Romney: “ I am astonished that you would think such a — such a torture would be inflicted on anyone in our — who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that’s not torture.”

Why is it that waterboarding, after our countries history condemning it and severely punishing those who used it, is deemed ok by many now? Could it be that fear has taken hold? Could it be that we have become exactly what the 19 religious fanatics who flew airplanes into our buildings wanted us to become- angry, frightened and ready to lash out with or without international approval, laws be damned? Sadly, I believe the answer is yes.

This past Veterans day I had a few beers with some fellow anti-war vets who, like me, served in South East Asia during the turbulent 60’s. The main topic of our conversation was the lack of protest by todays younger generation. Apathy, self centered, and at the mall were some of the words used by some of my frustrated buddies. However, I do not believe this generation is any different than the preceding ones. In my opinion there are three major reasons why Vietnam had more protesters and more intensity than the current war in Iraq: one, during the Vietnam era there was the draft; two, huge groups of discontented people were already protesting over civil rights, womens rights and workers rights; and three, during Vietnam there was anger at both the pro-war Democratic and Republican parties.

It would be nice to believe that the anti-war protests of the 60’s were all about peace and justice, but many were motivated by the fear of being drafted and having to fight in Vietnam. Nightly news showed scenes of bloody fire fights with badly wounded GI’s being carried off the battlefield. Further, every neighborhood across America had a young man serving in Vietnam. Almost everyone new of someone who was either wounded, killed or suffering from post traumatic stress. By 1969 there were 500,000 troops serving in Vietnam, most of whom were draftees; and every draft aged kid had a personal interest in opposing the war.

Another difference was the anger which already existed before the escalation in Vietnam. The “establishment” was being challenged. Huge Civil Rights protests had begun with many groups growing in numbers like the NAACP, SNICC, and the radical Black Panther Party; women started speaking out on their second class citizenship, and unions were emboldened by the rise of progressive thought. Martin Luther King was assassinated in Memphis where he was supporting striking garbage workers. The Vietnam war became a symbol for all these groups of how morally bankrupt the establishment was.

Yet another difference was, unlike Iraq where the electorate still believes the Democrats will end the war, during Vietnam both parties were perceived as wanting to continue the war. Lyndon Johnson, a very liberal President, was despised by the anti-war movement for continued escalation throughout his term. Who could forget the demonstrations at the 68 Democratic Convention in Chicago where Mayor Daily, a Democrat, unleashed his police to beat protesters while they chanted “the whole world is watching.”

I made these points to my friends plus the fact that there was some impressive demonstrations recently in many cities. I also mentioned the planning taking place for the protest at the Denver Democratic Convention in 08. Many were unimpressed and boasted about the 6o’s movement, which reminded me of the saying about the good ole days that never were. I truly believe if the conditions were similar to ours in the 60’s, todays youth would be as equally outraged as we were. And if our Democratic party continues the way they have been going of late, be prepared to see more and more folks of all generations showing their outrage.

The fondest memories of my childhood were the family summer vacations. Before corporations destroyed our towns, the best part of the vacation was the travel to and from your destination. Back in the day(the 50’s) with no air conditioning , The windows in the family car were down and the smell of the farms and the fresh air added to the stimulating scenery of small town America. Every passing town was different than the last. There was no same restaurant, hardware store, motel or gas station. I always enjoyed getting gas. There seemed to always be an interesting group of folks sitting around talking and drinking a bottle of soda.

My favorite stop was the restaurants. Our regular stop each year was a place where they had the Paul Bunyan Burger, which consisted of a third of a pound of fresh ground meat with onions and a thick slice of tomato on a huge soft bun. The choice of drink was a malt, not a puny shake but a real malt, made with real ice cream and blended in a huge metal container right in front of you. While enjoying my food, I always noticed an elderly lady quietly knitting while rocking back in forth in a squeaking chair in a side room to the kitchen. The following year the chair was empty, and her grand daughter, who worked as a waitress, said she passed the previous winter.

The memories are still with me, but the places are all gone now. All the towns are one endless display of huge corporate box stores and fast food chains. The folks working there all have name tags and uniforms. Gone is any form of creativity , warmness or camaraderie. On the highways are cars with windows up and air conditioners on. The folks are gabbing on cell phones , listening to i-pods or typing on a lap top. Instead of the smell of the farms and fresh air, the smell of the fast food bought at the last drive-through window runs through the car. I feel sad for all these folks; they never had the joy of experiencing the real small town America before our corporations reeked havoc on them.

Joseph Goebbels, the brilliant but evil Nazi propagandist, coldly and succinctly stated the fascist's view on the news media: "It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion." Studying the record of President Bush's Federal Communications Commission, one could easily envision the FCC's commissioner heartily endorsing the quote.

The Bush gang has not yet started goose stepping or wearing arm bands, but the FCC are making proposals that have many folks very concerned . The concern is that they are attempting to consolidate the most important element of a free and democratic state- the news media.

Our FCC is made up of five people, all appointed by the president. Currently we have three Republicans and two Democrats. The Commissioner is Kevin Martin, a Republican who replaced Michael Powell, the son of Colin Powell, in 2005. Both Martin and Powell have made every effort to loosen the rules on media ownership that will give major corporations the ability to own more media outlets. Evidently they are still not satisfied with how much the media has been consolidated already. Currently six corporations control half of all news and entertainment flows on the planet- Rupert’s News Corp plus Viacom, TimeWarner, Disney, CBS and General Electric. On August 1st, Murdoch put yet another notch in his belt with a hostile takeover of the Wall Street Journal which was a family owned paper for the last 100 years. Murdoch's News Corp. has an empire of 35 television stations, 26 papers, 5 magazines, and 26 publishing companies . Think of all the fair and balanced reporting that is spread all over the world.

During the reign of Michael Powell, Bush's first commissioner, the FCC proposed major rule changes which would have allowed companies dual ownership of a daily newspaper and a television station in markets with more than four television stations and cross-ownership in markets with nine or more stations. Further he wanted to give companies the right to own up to three stations in markets with 18 or more and allow a single company to own two stations in markets with five or more. Despite 750,000 comments submitted to the docket (almost all against the proposals) and protests in 14 cities, the FCC voted in favor of the changes.

Fortunately On September 3, 2003 The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia granted an emergency order to stay the rules pending a lawsuit against the rules. Lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Andy Schwartzmann, later acknowledges that the stay was granted because the court acknowledged that “a million people” wrote in against the rule changes. In June of 2004 the same court ruled against the FCC, deeming the rule changes “irrational” and “inconsistent”, keeping the stay in place and requiring the FCC to start anew on its attempt to revise the rules. All subsequent attempts to appeal the ruling in the next two years have failed.

The fight is nowhere nearly over. Despite public resentment of the commissions proposals, Bush's newest commissioner, Kevin Martin, is pushing the same agenda as his predecessor. It is up to us, the folks who rely on a diverse news media to keep us informed. Some polls conclude that anger over these proposals to consolidate an already shrinking media ranks second only to the Iraq war. Let's help prevent the Murdochs and other corporations from being the only ones serving up the news.

I am a huge proponent of the United Nations. In a chaotic world, it is imperative that we have a legitimate international forum which represents the world. Yes, the critics are correct, the UN has had many failures, but failure is almost inevitable when you have a mission like the UN has. Usually, the only people naive enough to believe they can deliver world peace are future Miss Americas. But the UN puts forth the effort, despite the fact they have to deal with a cast of pretty ruthless characters who have no interest in peace, such as Middle East terrorist, nutty neo-cons, and developing country dictators. Even with the uphill fight, our UN patiently goes forward, and every once in a while they succeed. Such is the case with the war torn country of Sierra Leone.

The UN dispatched 17,500 soldiers to Sierra Leone in 2002 to help end an 11 year war which took the lives of 50,000 people and displaced another 2 million. One of the lasting trademarks of the war was the many amputees whose limbs were ruthlessly severed by the rebel army. There were many failures along the way which critics like the Neo-Cons were quick to point out. In 2000, 500 UN soldiers with out dated maps got lost and taken hostage by guerrillas. They were stripped of their weapons by the very people they were sent to disarm. The rebels also made off with their armored personnel carriers and gear. Despite being dissed by all their critics they kept on, and in 2007 after a long up and down ordeal, Sierra Leone had elections in which over 1.5million people voted at 6,171 polling places. On September 17th, 2007 Ernest Bai Koroma was sworn in as Sierra Leone’s newly elected president.

In a developing nation like Sierra Leone with a bitter war behind them, things can still go wrong, but the UN has helped in sustaining peace and been engaged in assisting the new Democracy. Hopefully this huge undertaking will continue to succeed. Yes the critics will still be calling for an end to the UN, and they will continue to mock their shortcomings. But don’t tell that to the 5 million residents in Sierra Leone who now have a chance at living a peaceful life.

After reading that a report on arms sales for 2006 was coming out this week, I took a look at the record for 2005. According to the Conventional Arms Transfer to Developing

Nations report 1998 to 2005 published by the Congressional Research Service, the United States was number one in world wide sales at 11.6 billion dollars. The U.K. was second at 3.1 billion, and Russia was third at 2.8 billion.

I was startled to read that most of the weapons sales went to developing nations. Of the 32 countries who imported American weaponry, 18 had poor human rights record, and in 12 , citizens did not have the right to peacefully change the government.

Besides the moral argument that can be made against peddling arms to developing nations, it is also bad policy. What about the potential problem of these sales coming back to haunt us? In the report,they cited past problems: " The last seven times the United States has sent troops into conflict in substantial numbers: in Iraq (2003-present), Afghanistan (2001-present), former Yugoslavia (1998),Haiti (1994), Somalia (1992), Iraq (1990) and Panama (1989); they faced adversaries with weapons or military technology 'Made in the USA.' The widening war on terrorism and accelerating weapons sales to coalition partners will only increase the likelihood of the boomerang effect continuing to haunt us."

One ray of hope in stopping this insane practice is the United Nations. 153 governments in the General Assembly voted in favor of working on an International Arms Trade Treaty. Only one country voted against it- The United States, despite an appeal from 14 U.S. Senators to Condoleezza Rice. The General Assembly will take up the issue again late this year. I still remember a quote from one of our early cold war adversaries, V.I. Lenin, which rings true today: " The capitalist will sell us the rope which we will hang them." Let's hope the U.N. can prevent us from contributing to our own demise.

It looks as though the abstinence only program, a pillar of the Bush Administration's social agenda, has been a flop. A long awaited national study involving 2000 students who were tracked from middle-school through high school found that it does not stop children from having sex. Further, it does not increase or decrease the likelihood that they will use a condom while having sex.

"There's not a lot of good news here for people who pin their hopes on abstinence-only education," said Sarah Brown, executive director of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, a privately funded organization that monitors sex education programs.

The government spends 176 million a year on the program and millions more are spent every year in state and local matching grants. The study seems to prove those against it were correct. The "thou shalt not" approach which Christian Evangelicals prefer does not work with our youth.

There is even more bad news for the conservative crowd. An alternative program called abstinence-plus seems to be working. Conservatives were adamant that these "liberal programs" would only promote more sexual activity. A study of 39,000 youth from the US, Canada and the Bahamas done by the University of Oxford found that abstinence-plus educated teenagers had fewer sexual partners, and fewer pregnancies. Furthermore, in the vast majority of cases, abstinence-plus participants knew more about AIDS and HIV (the virus that causes the disease) than their peers did.

A comprehensive look on the abstinence plus program can be found in the recent issue of Public Library Science Medicine.

Every time I read about our political campaigns and the obscene special interest money that is involved, I think of one of my favorite lines from a Bob Dylan song: "Money doesn't talk, it swears." Even though poll after poll shows that over three-quarters of the American people believe that raising campaign money from Washington lobbyists is unacceptable, the practice continues.

With some very important issues facing us, it is naive to think that money will not play a part in the decision making. For example, our health care system is in need of huge overhaul, and money from the health care industry is flowing into the coffers of the candidates: For the first half of 2007, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, senator from New York and the leading fund-raiser, collected $63.1 million, of which $1.7 million, or 2.7%, was from the health sector . Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the second-leading fund-raiser among the Democratic candidates, collected $58.9 million; $1.2 million, or 2.1%, was from the health sector. Republican candidate Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts and the leading Republican fund-raiser, collected $44.4 million, including $1.4 million, or 3.1%, from the health sector. Rudolph Giuliani, the second-leading fund-raiser among the Republican candidates and the former mayor of New York City, raised $35.6 million, including nearly $900,000, or 2.5%, from the health sector. Is it surprising that all of the candidates except Kucinich are moving away from the idea of single tier health insurance?

Perhaps hope is on the way with a new proposal called the Senate Fair Elections Now Act recently introduced by Senators Dick Durbin and Arlen Specter. Representatives John Tierney of Massachusetts, along with Representatives Raul Grijalva and Todd Platts, introduced companion legislation in the House. Under this bipartisan proposal, candidates raise a large number of small donations to show their credibility with the public and then qualify for a set amount of public money for their campaigns. The legislation is modeled after clean-election laws in seven states, including Arizona and Maine, where the systems have been running well for four election cycles. (Massachusetts had a similar law, but it was repealed.)

Until then we can only monitor our representatives campaign coffers. Here is a web that will help you with the information.

http://www.cleanupwashington.org/sii/

CleanUpWashington.org - Under the Influence