By now I think anyone paying attention understands that Gov. Sanford's life is in full meltdown.  Clearly, here is a man in the midst of a midlife crisis that he is handling very, very badly to say the least.  I've done a little reading on the subject and Sanford shows all the classic signs through his behavior and statements.  Midlife crises are one of the factors that contributes to the higher suicide rate among middle aged men.  In Sanford's case his public and self administered destruction is almost a symbolic public suicide in my opinion.

These sorts of crises go on all the time in the private lives of millions of couples of course, but in the private lives of regular people one doesn't typically get many of the intimate details as we have so unnecessarily in this case as a result of Sanford apparently having lost all sense of what is and is not appropriate.  Unless you are very close to a couple being ripped asunder in this manner you just hear stories through the grapevine of some guy leaving his wife for the younger woman or otherwise making a fool of himself and destroying not only his life, but that of his wife and children too.

In this case, Sanford, like many men, hit this crisis and in essence lost all connection to reality as a result of being overwhelmed by the feelings of desperation and urgency that facing one's own mortality brings and which scares them beyond description. It is the fear they are feeling and don't know how to handle that drives all of this grotesque and harmful foolishness.  This fear and the inappropriate attempts to deal with it is the cause of all the tawdry drama, the sacharrin and quite public pining away for one's "soul mate" finally found, the astounding self absorbtion leading to extraordinarily unnecessary and callous statements about his far more significant and lasting relationship with his wife. 

For some men, Sanford being a prime example, a midlife crisis can become a form of temporary insanity propelled by the terror he feels at suddenly concluding that without some huge and dramtic change, his life will have in some way been wasted and he will have missed his one and only opportunity to fully experience life.  While in the midst of the episode (which can literally last for years) many men's persepctive becomes so distorted they will sacrifice everything that is actually valuable and worthwhile in their lives: their wife and children, their public reputation, their careers, their health, etc...

For almost all those who go through this pathetic drama, the pain, humiliation, the lies, the hypocrisy and so on are bad, but they at least are spared the worldwide publicity and humiliation that Sanford has brought upon himself and everyone associated with him.  His inability to cope with his feelings (not surprising for a highly repressed, moralistic, authoritarian personality) is responsible for all the seedy weirdness of his actions and statements that has been playing out in the media.  No doubt it is all going to get worse before he exits the public stage and no doubt Sanford has now earned himself a form of immortality because he will go down in history books as having made a bigger buffoon of himself than almost any other Governor ever has in the history of the United States.

In a sort of voyeuristic way, what is happening with Sanford is something none of us need to know about but because of the public nature of the spectacle it is difficult for many to avert ones eyes and attention to some degree as with a car wreck or some other ugly incident we happen upon that we are simply drawn to look at when brought to our attention though it is none of our business and is nothing but ugliness.  The drawn out character of Sanford's meltdown is taking this whole episode to new lows that in a regular person's life might lead to some form of intervention by friends and family members.  But obviously, Sanford is so self absorbed nobody can reach him at all at this time. 

In any event, it is no longer funny or even an amusing curiosity.  The ugliness of Sanford's self destruction and unconcsciounable emotional violence he is inflicting upon his family is pathetic, sad, and deplorable on a personal level.  Politically speaking it remains instructive for the general public as the penultimate example of the hypocrisy of the "family values" and "Christian fundamentalist" Republicans particularly but leaders in general.  Perhaps this will lead this generation of citizens to realize that whenever you see leaders so prominently getting on that soapbox it is only in an attempt to manipulate for self advantage.

I hope that, if nothing else, this pathetic drama by Sanford will lead some middle aged men across America to notice what this guy is doing and realize that if they are going through this sort of crisis and if they are having these feelings that what they need is not a "soul mate" to replace their wives or longtime mates, but therapy and perhaps some medication to help deal with it before they damage everyone around them they claim to love and value.

With Al Franken now ready to take his place in the Senate, the Democrats will have 60 votes, but who expects that to make any real difference?  I don't think anyone thinks it will make much difference at all.  So now that they no longer have the 60 votes excuse for failing to do what they've said they would do, what will be excuse now?

I hereby open the field for suggestions! 

Please share what you think the Democrats' excuses for failing to pass universal health care will be.  What will the excuses be for failing to pass a climate change bill that actually does something to address climate change?  What will be the excuse for failing to restore civil liberty, Constitutional government and the rule of law to the United States?  What will their excuse be for failing to pass the EFCA?   Feel free to add to this list other progressive pieces of legislation they will fail to pass.

Personally, I think the number one excuse they will offer is the reluctance of the "moderate" Democrats who fear the backlash and anger of their corporate contributors tied with failure to achieve a "bipartisan compromise."

But no matter what the excuses are that are offered, the real reason is that the Democrats are just as much up for sale as the Republicans.  They will do nothing to challenge the status quo or the power of the monied few over the many.

Why are we even discussing the "Public Option" that our President has proposed and that is being ground to dust by the likes of Max Baucus and other DINO's in Congress? 

Yes, the public option provides for at least the introduction of competition for health insurance companies, but even if it isn't watered down to the point of being counterproductive (which is very likely), the "Public Option" is only a feature of several plans all designed to keep our current system of health insurance for all intents and purposes, just as it is now.  Why the hell would any of us want that unless we are health insurance executives or major stockholders in those companies?  These alleged reforms aren't reforms at all but excuses for reform that prolong the counterproductive, rotten system we have now.  For the average American that sort of approach makes no sense at all---even if you are a cowering Harry Reid Democrat in Washington DC who is afraid of his/her shadow you have to know what a poor substitute such half measures really are compared to addressing the problem at its root which is the for profit insurance industry and it's allies by adopting some form of single payer---any version of which would be much better for Americans and their economic and physical health than anything even under discussion currently in DC.

The insurance parasites and their partners in perfidy in the drug companies, etc. want us to think they will do better in the future and won't gouge us quite so bad even though we all know very well they will never do anything but what they've always done and that is to seek the highest profit possible and the health of the American people be damned.  Seriously now, who on earth is dumb enough to believe such transparent lies?  A 5 year old might fall for such crap, but no self respecting adult can swallow it. 

It is disgusting enough to see how the Republicans rush to the defense of the insurance leeches and their associated parasitical business interests.  It is even worse though to see how obsequious, cowardly, craven and calculating the DC Democrats are generally speaking, but on this issue it is particularly galling.  Nothing could be more important to our people (their constituents).  No single measure could do more to help families, businesses and our economy than doing the right thing on health care.  Instead, we get the same old song and dance from our alleged "leaders" in Washington and among them I must include the President who, out of nothing but fear of the backlash from special interests, took the only real and effective solution off the table prior to any debate at all. 

Why are the Democrats such cowards?  Very simple.  They have grown, in many ways, just as corrupt as the Republicans, but it maifests itself differently.  They aren't quite as beholden to predatory wealth as their colleagues across the aisle.  Democrats like to make everybody happy by carrying all the water they can for the interests and then leaving a few crumbs behind for the common citizenry so they can claim they did something for them.  "See!", cry DC Democrats, "look what we got for you. It may not be what you wanted, but it is something isn't it?"  They and all the rest of the ruling elite have now been so irresponsible and so derelict in their duty to the American people for so long they can no longer get away with this political three card monty act.  No, the situation has become so dire that our timorous leaders must actually choose between predatory wealth and the health of our people.  Once and for all we will get the answer to whether or not there is any issue at all the Democrats are willing to fight for, whether they have the courage to stand by what they say are their convictions in any instance.  Sadly, we all know what their collective choice will likely be.

All this caterwalling about a public option is no favor to the common people.  It is really just another demonstration of Democratic cowardice.  We continue to hear about how "expensive" covering all the people will be.  Why is that?  We know we already pay much, much more than any other comparable industrialized nation for health care.  Why is this going to be so expensive and cost us more than our current system which is universally recognized as costing far too much and producing substandard results in terms of health outcomes?  Shouldn't we be saving money by reforming health care if we put all the money we spend on it now toward that purpose, given that we are paying so much more, by any standard, than the actual care is worth?  Well the short answer is that's right we should be saving money even while undertaking a major expansion and covering every citizen, but you can't do that when you want to keep the insurance companies fat and happy and gorging themselves at the expense of the entire population. 

Given the obscene annual expenditures on health care in this country as a result of the for-profit health insurance industry that is sucking the lifeblood out of what is left of the economy, we ought to be able to get everyone in the nation covered under a national plan and still have money to spare but that would require doing the right thing and a single payer plan is the only right thing.  Are the Democrats in DC up to that?  Do they have what it takes?  The answer as we all know is that it is unlikely.

The single payer approach is the best, most cost efficient, and most medically beneficial approach to "reforming" health care in America.  But we aren't even discussing it because our leaders do not have the courage even to petend to challenge the interests of predatory wealth.  Instead we are toying around with proposals that would have been great 15-20 years ago.  In the rarefied and completely out of touch atmosphere in DC there isn't one serious proposal in Congress that has a chance of seeing daylight that is in any way connected to reality or that will serve the real, short or long term interests of the citizens. 

Why are we putting up with this bullshit from Congress and the President?  Why are we allowing them once again to run away from and shirk their duty to the people who elected them?  It's insane really.

If we were discussing some form of single payer plan in America we would be on the road to sanity in health care.  And until we start discussing it seriously we are just blowing hot air this way and that.  We would also be on the road to better health outcomes for everyone if we were discussing single payer.  It's time for the Democrats to quit kowtowing to the interests and start responding to the national interest.  Just take a look at some raw facts about costs and you will see why the only funding problem we have in health care reform is trying to continue to fund the for-profit insurance companies.  It is time for single payer--long past time!  Dont' bother writing your members of Congress to get a half measure like the public option passed.  Why bother when all it does is perpetuate the current system.  We need a new system.  Write them, call them, fax them and demand what will work instead of what will not.  Demand single payer now!

We have nothing to lose folks.  They don't plan on doing anything that is actually going to be beneficial to the common citizens anyway.  So if the public option fails or some impotent form of it passes we are actually worse off than we were before because when an impotent public option doesn't work well it will become the numer one argument against single payer.  Just as they've done in other instances they will sabotage the "reform" and make sure it doesn't work well and then point to it as the excuse for not doing what is right in the future.  They've been playing this game for decades.  It's time to put it to a stop.  The only Democrat anyone can actually trust on this issue is Sen. Sanders of Vermont.  He has a single payer plan and is gathering the names of supporters.  Go to his site and get involved in it! Here's a link: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/issues/health.cfm

The following facts can be found on the National Coaltion on Healthcare's website at: http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml 

National Health Care Spending

• In 2008, health care spending in the United States reached $2.4 trillion, and was projected to reach $3.1 trillion in 2012.1 Health care spending is projected to reach $4.3 trillion by 2016
• Health care spending is 4.3 times the amount spent on national defense!!!
• In 2008, the United States will spend 17 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care. It is projected that the percentage will reach 20 percent by 2017
• Although nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens
• Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The numbers above considered on their own put the lie to all the whining and whimpering of Democrats in DC about how "costly" health reform is.  The only thing more costly than our present system is to keep the present system just as it is and/or to keep it as it is and also try to carve out a "public option" at the same time. 

It is time to stand up and fight the insurance predators for the sake of the physical and economic health of our families and establish a single payer system and we can easily do it with the money we are spending now if we stop dumping money into the laps of the insurance companies.  We can cover everyone and lower the costs of healthcare for everyone but not with any of the absurd and unrealistic "options" that are being discussed in Congress.  But it will never happen if, a) we don't demand it, and b) as long as the Democratic poltroons in DC are more afraid of the wrath of the insurance parasites than they are of ours.  Whadya say we give me something to really be afraid of eh?  We have nothing to lose by trying and everything to gain.

I think we can get a broad consensus on the question of whether or not there are a number of things that are unnecessary or just downright stupid that go on in this country and that ought to be changed, fixed, altered or otherwise done away with.  In fact, I'd say most, if not all, Americans would agree there are numerous such things.  But for some reason, these crazy, stupid, pointless, unproductive things are allowed to continue.  This post is intended as the first in an ongoing series of posts designed to focus on matters where we ought to be able to do something right now that would remedy the situation, improve our country and our lives.  Hopefully, the series will, at minimum, provide some real food for thought, if not inspire people to try and actually do something about some of these things.

For the inaugural post I have chosen the weird, relatively recently introduced, and IMHO insane practice of advertising prescription drugs to the general public.  You know, pushing drugs on people whether or not they need them... for the sake of profit. 

None of us can escape advertising in this country of ours, but one of the most pernicious forms of it (if not the most pernicious) has only sprung up in recent years and is increasing exponentially as the unrestrained greed of the drug companies becomes more and more manic and the fight for market share becomes more and more difficult and savage.  Everyone who has been awake in the past decade knows what I'm talking about here.  Everyone I have ever spoken to considers these ads, as I do, unnecessary, strange, often offensive, almost always absurd, and sometimes outrageous.  The comical effect of the disclaimers at the end of the ads only demonstrates how utterly moronic this practice truly is.

For those not paying close attention or who never watch television or listen to the radio, it used to be that prescription drugs were never advertised to the general public.  Prescription drugs were marketed to physicians so they would be aware of the latest advancements, etc...  This still goes on and is a realm filled with ethical potholes and danger but that is not our topic.  Somewhere along the way, and of course in pursuit of the ultimate holy of holies---greater profit, it was decided to let drug companies start advertising prescription drugs to the public just like any other product.  I'm not ancient, but neither am I spring chicken (apologies to Bwak), but when I was growing up the most annoying/problematic "drug" advertising were the commercials for over the counter laxatives or "feminine" products that seemed always to be on right at dinnertime.  Things have changed considerably in the past 10 years or so. 

Now, we have ads for prescription drugs for every possible malady from Alzheimer's disease, to high cholesterol, to the ubiquitous, infamous and feared.... (cue scary music)  "ED".  In short, prescription drug advertising, used as simply yet another outlet for the ends of capitalist profit worship is totally out of hand and needs to be put to a stop.

Let's be clear and not fool anyone including ourselves about this.  The sole purpose of these ads is to create markets where none previously existed or to exploit a previously untapped or undersold market to the fullest.  This is done for one reason and one reason only and that is to boost drug company profits.  None of these ads, that's correct not a single one of these ads, has anything to do with benefiting the people these drugs are being marketed to.  If the drugs happen to benefit some people that's fine with the drug boys but it isn't the point by any means. 

A brief review of what exactly is going on here.  The drug companies, in order to boost sales, are now marketing their products not to doctors who know something about what is going on in terms of the diseases in question and the potential remedies, but to the general public---people who clearly do not know what is going on, who are vulnerable to the hard sell, soft sell,  and the fears and insecurities that the ads deliberately plant in their minds.  And this without even mentioning the false hope that some of these ads are clearly peddling particularly with the Alzheimer's drugs.  It's enough to make a body sick!

As noted above, all the usual marketing techniques are being used to boost sales: appeals to vanity, fear, ego, etc...  The drug companies are spending billions, in effect, to convince Americans that they need drugs they probably don't need and then to hound and harass their doctors into prescribing  these drugs for them.  This is no different than the tried and true techniques used for decades to convince children to hound their parents for crappy, sugary treats and cereals, for games that look great in commercials but suck when you bring them home, for the most expensive clothes, for the most unhealthy bread, and on and on and on.  I assume everyone reading this knows precisely the cause and effect relationship between advertising a given product/concept and the stimulating effect on demand for said product that occurs whether or not any real demand, in fact, exists at all.  It is well known that Americans are constantly convinced to consume products of all kinds they neither want nor really need.  This is why we are a nation of enormously fat people now and why we are a nation of a million bad habits instigated and sustained by advertising.  Well this is one area where there's simply no good reason, nor is their any benefit  for the ads and where there is every reason to do away with them. 

In this day and age with the health care system as exorbitantly expensive as it is, it seems to me inexcusable that this amazing waste of literally billions of dollars every year is allowed to continue.  Included in the already unjustifiably expensive prices Americans pay for prescription drugs, we also have to pay for the billions in costs it takes to constantly hawk these drugs on TV and radio and in print nationwide.  In short, it is a practice with no benefits for the public which is little more than an extraordinarily useless and expensive outrage.

Think of the billions in savings if such ads are banned right away.  Think of how the lives of millions would be improved never having to endure another advertisement for Cialis or Viagra or Spiriva (sounds like a disease itself) or Caduet or any of the other drugs we, as the public, don't need to be told about and don't need to be convinced to ask our doctor about.  And let me take a moment here to zero in on how offensive I (and everyone I've ever spoken to about it) find the "ED" drug commercials.  Ya know what, if ya can't get it up I feel for ya, but I really don't want to hear about it okay?  I just don't.  It is patently offensive to be pushing that on citizens and their families at all hours of the day and night and there's simply no excuse for such garbage to be advertised constantly.  I have this sneaking suspicion that none of those "ED" drugs would have any problems at all getting known or finding a market if the entire population wasn't constantly barraged with ads for them everywhere we go on TV, radio and in print.  Not only is it offensive and unnecessary but it also becomes an issue in families with kids because kids are curious.  I have no interest explaining to a child just what "ED" is, how or why or to whom it occurs or what Cialis or one of its competitors can do for men who have this problem.   

In short, advertising prescription drug is completely unnecessary, a massive waste of billions of consumer's dollars, and should be banned immediately and forever.  Not one soul will miss it.  I dare say even the craven drug company people and PR types who cook the stuff up won't miss it.  They'll miss out on the money they get as a result of it, but I doubt any of them will go hungry when those ads disappear forever. 

It is shocking to me that none of the alleged health care reform bills before the Congress includes an iron clad, permanent ban on prescription drug advertising.  Personally, I suggest writing to the President and your members of Congress on this point.  It certainly can't hurt and just might end up saving us billions annually.  If it happens it would certainly improve our quality of life by sparing the entire American population from having to see those now satisfied couples in their separate bathtubs, ever again.  What is that bathtub thing about anyway?

It's my understanding that the only industrialized country in the world beside the USA that allows this sort of idiotic marketing is Australia.  What does that say about this practice eh?

The bottom line is this: banning the marketing of prescription drugs is something the Congress and President could easily accomplish and it ought to be done right now.

I cannot but admire the courage and guts of the people of Iran as I view the pictures of them peacefully assembling in the face of violent repression.  Young and old, male and female they march by the thousands and are being beaten, arrested, and even killed. 

I admire their willingness to literally stand and fight for their right to vote and to have that vote counted. 

Americans can learn from the Iranian people.  Their rights were trampled and their votes stolen and did they simply sit at home and watch tv?  No!  They are in the streets declaring that they will not tolerate their rights being ignored.  Under their law they have the right to elect a President.  They know very well that the election results were fraudulent and they are unwilling to simply accept that their rights are meaningless.  Where would America be today if, in the wake of the unconstitutional intervention of the Republican majority on the Supreme Court, had we the courage, and the willingness the Iranians have demonstrated?

All hail the people of Iran!  May God be with them in their hour of need!

Pre-revolution

In the mid 1970's you could not be on a major American university or college campus without being exposed to the ISA: the Iranian Students Association.  And so it was that in the fall of 1976 I was first exposed to the ISA.  The Iranian Ambassador to the United States, Ardeshir Zahedi, was scheduled to speak on the campus of my school which was actually a small school and we had no Iranian students in attendance at that time.  Out of nowhere, early in the day he was to speak, young Iranian students from many places both near and far descended by bus and private car on my campus to protest his appearance.

It was well known back in those days that the regime in Iran was a puppet government of the United States that used brutal tactics to maintain power.  Like other Middle Eastern dictators, the Shah of Iran was a "strong man" whose dictatorship depended upon intimidation and repression.  The Shah's secret police, the SAVAK, was notorious for torturing people, for all sorts of thuggery not unlike one would expect of the Gestapo or the KGB.  Zahedi was, from the moment the US installed the Shah in the early 1950's, one of the top men inside the regime and was very close to the Shah himself.  The Shah, despite being universally recognized as a despot, was generally given credit in the American media for "westernizing" Iran and for holding the line against the USSR and creeping Bolshevism in Iran.  Iran was known as a prosperous, oil rich nation that was an important "strategic ally" of the United States and the west generally. 

The students of the ISA were intense, highly articulate, motivated, interesting, committed to democracy and throwing off the yoke of repression and tyranny the CIA had imposed upon them for the previous twenty years or so.  They made their case in compelling fashion and they were relentless in their organizing efforts and in demonstrating their implacable opposition to the Shah continuing on "The Peacock Throne".  They wanted a democratic government, responsive to the people of Iran and one that would serve the people of Iran instead of an oligarchy.  There was never any "anti-Americanism" coming from the students of the ISA though they did not hide their displeasure over American backing for the Shah or for the US providing all sorts of training for SAVAK in torture and other techniques of "persuasion" and repression generally. 

On the day of Zahedi's speech they chanted literally for hours: "Zahedi! Zahedi! Run!  Run!  Run!  The people of Iran are picking up their guns!"  That chant is forever burned in my memory.  It seemed at the time admirable that the Iranian students would be courageous enough to demonstrate against their government as they were doing, knowing what it was capable of.  It also seemed, at the time, highly unlikely the Shah would ever be going anywhere.  The Shah was facing increased opposition, but with America solidly behind him it was difficult to envision any popular uprising that would be able to withstand the military and police might the Shah could bring to bear on any such movement.  It appeared to most Americans that though he was despised by his people, the Shah was simply too well armed to be dislodged from power. 

But, as it turned out, the revolt against the Shah's tyranny was much deeper and gaining much more power than the American media was reporting.  Thus, few Americans understood the precarious hold on power the Shah had at the time.  Enormous pressure was building in Iran via a broad coalition of all those factions who opposed the Shah.  It was only near the end, when it was becoming clear the Shah's hold on power was not guaranteed that the US media started to cover what was, in fact, going on there.  The images broadcast at the time of vast throngs in the streets of Tehran in front of the freedom memorial were extraordinary and the whole world could see just how unpopular the Shah was with his own people.  His legitimacy was destroyed by those demonstrations.  Regardless of the form of government, all government depends upon the consent of the governed for legitimacy and cannot long last without it.  The government of the Shah was no exception and it was not long before he had to accept that reality. 

Fast Forward 30 Years 

In the past week, it appears the same sort of popular rejection of a new tyranny has been taking place.  This is the first time since 1979 that I remember seeing massive crowds demonstrating against an Iranian government. Even more significantly, we see those vast crowds around that very same memorial where the Iranian people so famously threw off the yoke of the Shah's tyranny in 1979.  Those images are what have made me really sit up and take notice of what is taking place right now in Iran since last week's election.

The protests that have been taking place seem to be being misrepresented (or perhaps more accurately misinterpreted) in the American media to a certain degree.  Our politicians and media apparently want to hope that these protests mean that Iranians reject the revolution of 1979.  I cannot imagine that to be the case because that would mean they are rejecting the decision of the people to get rid of the monarchy, it's repressive ways and American exploitation of Iran.  Despite what I believe to be this misunderstanding, a few voices have been expressing the viewpoint that the demonstrators are looking to restore the revolutionary potential of 1979 which they believe has gone awry for some time.  The former revolutionaries of 1979 who seized power---the mullahs and their fundamentalist supporters have become despots themselves in many ways that the people of Iran have grown weary of.  I could, of course, be wrong, but it seems to me that this revolution is more a social one than a strictly political one.  The Puritanism and intrusive requirements for compliance with many (particularly young people) with an out of date/out of step set of social norms and standards of a new generation are the spark that has ignited these protests.

It appears to me that all the Iranian protesters are demanding is what they see to be their basic rights.  They believe in the meaning of their revolution which was the throwing off of western (specifically American) domination and exploitation of their country.  They also believe, it seems to me, in their democratic rights.  Though the fundamentalist religious faction quickly seized power in Iran and has dominated the government since the fall of the Shah, they were not the only faction that brought him down.  They have maintained their dominant position to some extent by suppressing the other factions that helped bring down the Shah.   

A National Hero 

The great hero of the Iranian people since the early fifties has been Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh.  The fundamentalist religious faction that has consolidated its power over the past 30 years fears most, what the Shah himself feared most too and that is the assertion of a genuine democratic form of government along the lines of the vision of Mossadegh.  Soon after seizing power, the mullahs forbade all but the most fleeting and rare references to Mossadegh who is really the father of Iranian democracy and independence from the colonial and western imperial powers.  His vision was of a democratic Iran that protected its culture including its religion but was not ruled solely by Islam.  His was a secular democratic vision.  I believe that is what a vast number of Iranian revolutionaries had in mind back in 1979 despite the fact that Ayatollah Khomeini was the leader around which the revolution coalesced.  Certainly the young men and women I met who were members of the ISA were looking for a secular democracy.  One hears references to the coup in 1953 and to the man who was forcibly removed from power in it, but rarely is there any information about this great man in the American media.  He is an important figure in the history of the world during the past 50 years and worth learning about.  If interested, you can find out more about Dr. Mossadegh at this site:  http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/biography/

I have often thought that what happened in Iran after the revolution was not, in one respect, unlike what happened in England in the 17th Century after the civil war there.  The parliamentary faction, in large part energized by the fiery protestant puritans and other religious "dissenters" defeated the King and eventually had him beheaded.  The protectorate formed in the wake of the elimination of the monarchy was dominated by the Puritans who, for a brief number of years, forced their dreary, gloomy, overly earnest form of Christianity, its morals and mores on the entire population to the extent that it could.  But their zealous Puritanism was not shared by the vast majority of their fellow Brits who chafed at the dour and colorless lifestyle of the puritans who held power.  When the monarchy was restored, the general population was overjoyed to welcome back the monarchy and break free of the priggish puritan rules and regulations on personal behavior, etc... as much as anything else.  The English did not want to have their personal behavior and lives regulated to the degree that the dead earnest puritans demanded.  So too in Iran we see a people whose revolution was dominated by overzealous puritans, in this case Islamic, who had played a critical role in the great revolution of 1979.   

Likewise, the fundamentalist domination of the Islamic Republic has been too overbearing for too long and a large swath of the people chafe against this.  The repressive demands have gone too far and so much so that the people are, to a certain extent, now resisting all that excess by proxy in demanding that their votes have real weight and meaning.   

The Iron Law of Oligarchy 

There is a concept in political science known as "The Iron Law of Oligarchy".  This concept is very simple to understand and refers to the phenomenon that all revolutionaries eventually become like the oligarchs they have displaced.  It seems the Iron Law is demonstrating itself in Iran where the fundamentalists have evolved into an oligarchy that uses means and methods not at all unlike those the Shah's regime used to keep people in line, in fear, and unable to challenge their authority.  As they have become an oligarchy on their own they have become increasingly alienated from a large portion of the society they govern. 

The belief of so many Iranians that the regime has manipulated and/or fixed the election results is the opening for giving voice to a plethora of complaints and grievances the people have with those who hold real power in the regime. The people demand that their fundamental democratic right to choose their leaders be respected by the regime and the real powers that be in Iran have obviously not done that.   

Unlike the American population in 2000, the Iranian people are unwilling to give the regime the benefit of the doubt on the stolen election and they are literally demonstrating that this is intolerable and unacceptable to them.  Good for them!  I don't believe, however, that they are rejecting the revolution of 1979, Islam, or much of what the fundamentalist rulers have done and I think it would be a mistake to believe that is what they are doing.  It appears that what they want is to see changes/reforms, they want more freedom, they want a modern vision for their nation, they want less rigidity overall with respect to the personal lives of individuals and families.  Iranians, I would think, want to be treated more like citizens and less like subjects.  At least that is what I see and interpret this all to mean given my limited exposure to Iranian citizens and what I've learned by reading and studying what has been going on there over the past 30 years. 

The Right of Self Determination 

Americans often forget that sovereign nations and peoples abroad have their own viewpoints, their own preferences, tolerances, desires, and ways of doing things that aren't necessarily in common with ours.  But there is nothing wrong with people having their own views and preferences.  Those differences in and of themselves do not demonstrate hostility toward the US.  What is going on in Iran now is the business of the Iranian people alone and they have every right to determine their own destiny free from any foreign influence especially American influence.  This burst of protest in Iran while limited in the strictest sense to the dispute over the election will, it seems to me, inevitably take on greater meaning and scope if it hasn't already whether it is intentional or not.  What the US needs to do is stay out of it.  We need to make sure we don't attempt to project what our desires are upon those of the people of Iran.  We should let them tell us and the world what their desires and intentions are.  In short, we have no role in this.  We are and can only be observers and rightfully so. 

No one can know where current developments will lead Iran and its people.  My own personal hope for Iran is that these protests might eventually push Iran down the path it should have been allowed to freely pursue, and that which it freely chose over half a century ago, and that is the path of Dr. Mossadegh.  If they finally find that path again, Iran will flourish and be able to become the nation it would have become had we not toppled their democracy in 1953: a free, prosperous, democratic, and progressive nation.   

For the past 30 years I have bitterly regretted how horrendously all our Presidents have misplayed our relationship with Iran.  I continue to believe the foolish, overblown hostility toward Iran we still refuse to fully relinquish has been the primary reason the Islamic Republic's rulers have been hostile to America.  President Obama's recent acknowledgement of the CIA coup of 53 was a good start at repairing our relationship with Iran but only a start.  Having said that, even Obama has continued the saber rattling toward Iran though to an obviously lesser degree.   

Our inexcusable imperial ambitions in Iran and our seemingly endless adolescent reaction to their revolution and their determination to govern their own nation in the manner of their own choosing have always been the root of our problems with that country.  Our governments have sabotaged numerous attempts at reconciliation over the years that have only caused the reactionaries in Iran to grow in power.  Perhaps with a little luck, America will begin to adopt a posture toward Iran based on respect for their sovereignty and right to self determination.  When that happens, our relationship with Iran can become not merely just no longer hostile, but we will someday become friends with that nation as we should be.  Demonizing and threatening Iran is a failed strategy.  Our ongoing hostility toward Iran only makes the situation worse.  We will never have any influence (except in the most negative manner) in Iran unless we build a relationship based on mutual respect instead of subservience for Iran.  By cultivating such a relationship we will simultaneously be able to eventually eliminate the potential threat of Iranian attack to Israel and, I would think, substantially diminish the level of armed violence and terrorism against Israel in Lebanon and in the occupied territories. 

As the people of Iran courageously demonstrate their anger at having their democratic rights ignored, I wish them the best of luck and hope fervently this represents a turning point for them that will lead to a return to the vision of a modern, democratic Iran by and for Iranians and one where their government is and remains independent from foreign influence so the people and society of this ancient and accomplished culture can reach its full potential at home and on the world stage.  The entire world is watching, waiting and hoping this will be a positive moment for Iran and her people.

I probably let the length of this post get out of hand.  Sorry for that, but hope some find it worth reading despite the length.

One final note... There are many excellent books about Iran, etc...  One that I highly recommend to anyone interested in Iran is a book called "All the Shah's Men" by Stephen Kinzer.  Kinzer is, I believe,  a retired NYT reporter.  The book looks back at the origins of American involvement in Iran back in the 50's.  It provides a good context for what has occurred in Iran since, how America so foolishly erred in installing the Shah and the roots of Iranian hostility toward and fear of America.  It's not a long book, is a quick read and is well worth one's time.  I read it in a couple of days on the beach.

MINOR UPDATE: Tonight, for the first time, in pictures of today's demonstrations in Tehran I saw pictures of Dr. Mossadegh being held aloft by the protesters.  The more the image of Mossadegh is seen, the greater the threat to the current powers that be.  I am encouraged by this and hope that we see more and more pictures of Mossadegh as the protests continue. 

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the health care "reform" the Democrats are cooking up in Washington right now with their BFF's from the insurance and drug companies isn't going to solve the health care crisis we all face. 

The best plan for America, the most cost effective plan, and the only plan that will actually provide healthcare to all our people is some form of a single payer plan.  Personally, I prefer the Medicare for All approach, but there's more than one way to approach implementing a single payer plan.  The important thing is that single payer be the approach.  No half-assed, watered down "reform" that does nothing to change the rotten system we have now.  Even the public option under discussion may get watered down to the point where it will be unable to serve the purpose for which it is intended which is to actually provide some competition for the insurance bloodsuckers.

Unless and until the insurance parasites and the sweetheart deals for drug companies are eliminated from our health care system Americans will continue to suffer and in some cases even die. 

Everyone who is for single payer knows that if we are to have any hope at all of getting single payer considered it is going to take some action on the part of single payer proponents including themselves.  So, here are a few things anyone can do that will actually have an impact.

First, get in touch with one of the organizations that is actively working on the issue.  One such organization can be found at 1payer.net.  You can go to their website: http://www.1payer.net/ and find lots of good information there and suggestions about what you can do.

Among the things you can do are:

Make a donation so they can air pro-single payer spots on tv.  They have a great spot on the front page of their website featuring Mike Farrell of MASH fame.  A slightly easier to view version of it can be found on youtube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nRI449jG20

You can use the 1payer.net website to send faxes to key players in Congress.

You can attend the rally in Washington, DC on June 25 or if you can't make it there participate by taking the day off work.  Information on the rally that I copied from the website is below.

CONGRESS IS ACTING. THEY HAVEN'T BEEN LISTENING TO US

1 MILLION People Shouting:

Not Some. Not Most. All.

If you can't come to Washington, you can still make a difference on June 25.

It's important to remember what occured on D-Day, as it is to remember all the bravery, courage and fortitude it took to fight in World War II to defeat Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany.  But let us not get too wrapped up in the sentimentality and worhsiping of the sacrifices made to the point where we forget that what occured on D-Day was an inhuman slaughter of young men who were ground up like hamburger attempting to establish a landing point for the great invasion of France.

Young Americans and the young men of our allies have never displayed a lack of courage, fearlessness, determination to fight for the lands they love or to selflessly give their lives on behalf of their country.  What happened on D-Day demonstrates this.  My point here is to remind people that modern warfare is mass murder.  For those who may not have seen it in a while, I urge you to watch Saving Private Ryan again.  What is most evident in that movie, for me, is how outmoded are the old romantic concepts of gallantry, bravery, skill in warfare and so on in an age of mechanized slaughter.  When those teenagers were mowed down by machine guns as the doors of their amphibious vehicles opened up it was nothing but murder and they never had a chance.  That movie, while certainly paying homage to what happened then, is also the best representation I have seen on film of what the carnage of war is really all about and how inhuman and ghastly a business it really is.  There is nothing romantic or desirable about any of it.  Any veteran who has been through it will tell you so.  I ahve spoken over the years to men who have fought in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq and they are universal in their assessment of what a genuine horror show war really is.

Having read endless volumes on World War II and other wars, having seen countless documentaries about that war and other modern wars and having read and seen the testimony of so many men who fought in World War II and our other modern wars the lesson is clear: war must come to an end.  It is a senseless, horrific activity that produces little or no good under the best of circumstances.  The weapons now employed on the battlefield completely negate most skill and reduce a soldier's chances to mere luck as can be seen so very poignantly in Saving Private Ryan.  The weapons we have invented are utterly merciless and provide no second chances. we have industrialized the battlefield to the point where it is simply shocking in every respect.

After the carnage of World War II was over, the mass of people around the world, having seen atrocities, destruction, death unimaginable and an endless amount of pain and suffering were united in their determination to put an end to warfare and to use international law and to develop a worldwide body of laws that would provide for alternative means of settling the disputes of nations so we would never again have to endure the kind of slaughter World War II brought upon us all.  The US, despite it's laudable leading role for decades in the attempt to build and strengthen the rule of international law and morality, has been at war more than any other nation since then and we have been in a state of emergency almost constantly since the end of World War II.  This experience over time has twisted and warped our country and hurt our republic, not to mention our economy.  During the Cold War there could be some justification for our obscene outlays for the military.  But since that time, especially since the beginning of our imperial and clearly illegal invasion of Iraq, there has been no such excuse.  All of the young Americans who have died in that effort have died fighting a fight that needn't have been fought.  The hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi's have lost their lives too in a fight that should never have been fought.  And the war we are fighting which had some initial genuine justification has now become a pointless, endless process of destabilization and destruction that is perilously bleeding over into Pakistan.

Presently, as we remember the tragic slaughter in Normandy of the thousands who never got to grow old, the United States is escalating the war in Afghanistan and gearing up to fight an expanding conflict in Pakistan.  The withdawal of our troops from Iraq will likely not happen within the next decade if our leaders have their way--despite the official position that we are drawing the troop level down to "only" 50,000 troops by sometime next year.  There seems to be no real exit strategy from these wars that are only breeding more hatred, instability, and future violence in the middle east and south asia. 

We need to remember on this anniversary of D-Day that none of the major wars we have fought since World War II have concluded with "victory" but instead they have concluded in either stalemate or defeat for US forces.  And all this stalemate and defeat has come at great financial and human cost to our country and the countries in which we have fought.  There is absolutely no reason to believe that the imperial wars we are now engaged in will end in "victory" either.  We are not fighting armies as we did in World War II.  We have no defined enemy, but each day our imperial forces continue killing Iraqis and Afghanis and Pakistanis in their own land we breed enemies and hatred for our country and our people.  Far too many Americans among the elite and amongst the common people seem to think about war as little more than a strategic contest in the same way one would a major sports event.  But that is a luxury for those who are not near the death, destruction, and chaos of war.

So, now 65 years after the massive invastion of Hitler's Fortress Europe began we need to remember that sacrifice and the courage of the thousands upon thousands of young people who did what they had to do.  We need to remember those who tragically lost their lives or were wounded.  We need to remember those who were blessed and lucky enough to survive that awful conflict.  But we need also and most importantly to give meaning to all those sacrifices by remembering just exactly what war is---mass murder---and by pledging oursleves to do all we can to stop the wars currently being fought and to prevent war in the future. 

I refer people to the excellent Andy Rooney commentary I linked to on Memorial Day that addresses this point far better than I can: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/26/60minutes/rooney/main697964.shtml  

You should click on the link to the brief but excellent commentary of this World War II vet, but the bottom line of his commentary was:

"Remembering doesn't do the remembered any good, of course. It's for ourselves, the living. I wish we could dedicate Memorial Day, not to the memory of those who have died at war, but to the idea of saving the lives of the young people who are going to die in the future if we don't find some new way - some new religion maybe - that takes war out of our lives. "

Amen Andy!

A doctor was assassinated today in Wichita, KS by a religious fanatic and cold blooded killer.  His name was Dr. George Tiller.  But who killed Dr. Tiller?  Was it the gunman alone?  Hardly.

Ever since the Roe v Wade decision by the Supreme Court made abortion safe and legal, the nation has endured an endless, vitriolic campaign of harrassment against abortion led by the Roman Catholic Church and Fundamentalist Protestants.  This is an indisputable fact.  For decades these institutions have drilled into the heads of their flocks that those who participate in any way in any abortion are "murderers" and "baby killers".  This would include the mothers as well as the doctors and all the other healthcare workers involved.  They founded the anti-abortion movement, they have grown it, they have taken credit for it, they have led it, they have exhorted it, they have driven it, they have funded it, they have been responsible for continuing it long after the legal question was decided and put to rest for the vast majority of our people--even those who so blindly follow them.

They have harrassed doctors, nurses, pregnant women and anyone else who happened to have business in any office or building that provided abortion services or even advice about where to find abortion services.  Gore drenched pictures of mangled fetuses in garbage pales, swastikas, and all manner of shrill visual and audio props have been shoved in the faces of any passers by and those who enter the buildings housing such offices.  These props (provided by the religiously motivated opposition to abortion) are used by misguided zealots whose hearts and minds are often filled with so much love for Jesus and the unborn that they lose sight of any boundaries of propriety in their behavior and their obsessive harrassment of people who are seeking help for a legal and safe medical procedure.  More than once this zealotry has turned criminally violent.  These narrow-minded mobs never tire of hurling invectives and the worst sorts of bile at anyone or any institution that is connected in any way to an abortion provider.

The clergy of these two organizations regularly exhort their blinded followers to continue the harrassment outside the clinics, the extremist, hateful and reckless rhetoric.  They let the sheep do the dirty work for the shepherds and then when one of those sheep literally goes ballistic they loudly proclaim their opposition to any such activity despite the fact that they have been callling men like Dr. Tiller "mass murderers" and "baby killers" for decades and thus poisoning our entire public life for nearly 40 years over their prescientific religious dogmatic extremism.

Every time a man like Dr. Tiller has been killed, the "pro-life movement" makes pro forma condemnation of the murderers of a human being and then the very next day go right back to inciting the very violence they claim to oppose.  It is sickening.  It is literally, killing people.  It has got to be put to an end.

The so called "pro-life movement" and it's religious leaders need to bring an immediate halt to the unending, venomous, harrassment of women, their doctors and healthcare workers they have been engaged in now for decades.  And yes, that means that the right wing fundamentalist Protestant preachers need to go on tv and openly and loudly proclaim their opposition to any further verbal or symbolic harrassment at clinics and offices and they need specifically to call for an immediate end to the harrassment at clinics using the words murder, murderer, mass murderer, baby killers and so on and so does the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church.  The despicalbe and irresponsible behavior they have engaged in has led to this shocking murder today of Dr. Tiller. 

Both sets of religious leaders and the non-clergy leadership of the anti-abortion mob are culpable in the murder of Dr. Tiller for exhorting their followers to such extremes for decades, driving them to near frenzy in their religious condemnation of a medical procedure long made legal and so the minimum they can do is bring an immediate halt to the endless and quite pointless harrassment and extremist rhetoric they have engaged in themselves and encouraged in others that has now led to yet another sickening murder of a doctor simply because he did not share their religious beliefs.

So who killed Dr. Tiller?  It is time for the religious leaders who have brought us to this point to look in the mirror to find the killer.   Everyone knows who really killed Dr. Tiller.

To the murderers I say, blood is on your hands and it is from the actual murder of a living, breathing, full grown, innocent man whose life was dedicated to helping others though your dogmatic religious blindness condems him for it.  Those who have led the crazed anti-abortionists and have incited them to this kind of violence will attempt to wash their hands of this act, but I don't think simply distancing themselves from the action of the man who pulled the trigger is fooling anyone any longer. 

No one is fooled Reverend.  No one is fooled Father.  The time for your dishonet distancing of yoursevles from the logical outcome of all your rhetoric is over.  Ultimately, you are guilty of this crime and need to take responsibility for the murder you have caused to be committed in your names and in the name of Jesus.  Confess and repent before you kill another innocent man or woman and disgrace yourselves any further and before you bring further disgrace to your churches.

I rarely watch 60 Minutes anymore, but yesterday I coincidentally caught Andy Rooney's commentary on Memorial Day.  I am very glad that I saw it. 

A lot of the time Rooney plays the curmudgeonly old fella with quirky takes on this and that.  But what many may not realize is that Rooney is a WW II veteran.  Like so many in his generation, Rooney knew not a few who were killed in that war.  When you know them it gets personal.  On this occasion Rooney gave America a glimpse of the razor sharp mind and very deep emttions that run through this man and, I think, many of those who understand what war really is.  His commentary is well worth the minute or so it takes to listen to it. 

At the end of the commentary, Rooney makes, IMHO, the best and most important point that can or should be made on Memorial Day.  With the hundreds of thousands of our countrymen and women fighting overseas (for what I don't know), each of us ought to give some thought as to how we might accomplish Rooney's wish.

Here is the conclusion of his commentary:

"Remembering doesn't do the remembered any good, of course. It's for ourselves, the living. I wish we could dedicate Memorial Day, not to the memory of those who have died at war, but to the idea of saving the lives of the young people who are going to die in the future if we don't find some new way - some new religion maybe - that takes war out of our lives.

That would be a Memorial Day worth celebrating."

The rest of this brief but excellent commentary can be found here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/26/60minutes/rooney/main697964.shtml

As well all know, Memorial Day has become a day to remember all those soldiers who have died in service to the United States of America.  That is fitting, as the loss of any life on behalf of one's country is significant and deserves to be honored.  It is fitting too, to remember the origin of Memorial Day which was still called "Decoration Day" when I was a boy.

Decoration Day began, not as a national holiday but, as General Order No. 11 of the Grand Army Of The Republic, the veterans organization of all those who served the cause of the United States in putting down the one and only seriously organized effort that ever threatened our nation's existence.  I urge you to read it.  It isn't long.  While it's language tells much about the time in which it is written, take a moment to reflect on the genuine, deeply held conviction with which it is written and take particular note of the words used to describe those who died, those they fought and for what they fought.  With the passage of time it is easy to forget the real issues at stake back then.  When you read the words of those who were actually involved it helps to clarify, once again, what those issues really were.

Though 141 years have now passed since General Order No. 11 and 148 years have passed since the organized attempt to destroy the United States of America began, we should never forget those who, at the moment required, stood to defend the union of states, the republic and the future of all Americans in both.  It is impossible to overstate the thundering tsunami of change that swept this nation as a result of their patriotic sacrifice during the intense and bloody clash of civil war.  Numbers, as well as the words of General Order No. 11 can help us to understand and put into perspective the profound nature of the struggle they took part in, and without which, the great nation we live in today would never have come to be.  The numbers can help to remind us how very much all of us owe to them and their sacrifice and that we should never forget to appreciate it and to be grateful for it.

The numbers of those in uniform who lost their lives defending the United States from 1861-1865 were simply  staggering.  No community in the US escaped losing members.  The number of US soldiers killed in battle and who died as a result of disease was 360,222.  Of those, it is estimated 3,530 native Americans fought for the United States.  Over 1,000 of them were killed.  209,145 African Americans fought for the United States.  Over 36,000 of them were killed. 

The number of lives lost by the US in the Civil War is a greater number than in any other war our country has fought but, of course, our population at the time was much smaller.  According to the 1860 census the national population was 31,443,321.  Our current population of nearly 304,000,000 is almost 10 times the size of civil war America.  Of that number in 1860, 3,953,760 (12.57%) were held in a permanent state of slavery.  39.1% of the population in the 11 states that chose to join the rebellion were held in slavery as were 1.927% in the states that remained loyal.  In Mississippi and South Carolina, slaves comprised a numerical majority of the population (55.17% and 57.18% respectively).

So, here is General Order No. 11 as originally issued.  Take a minute.  Read it.  As you honor the sacrifice of all American soldiers for their country, take a special moment to honor those whose lives were given to preserve, protect, and defend the United States when it's existence was most gravely threatened, the outcome more uncertain, and the cost higher than at any other time in our history.

HEADQUARTERS GRAND ARMY OF THE REPUBLIC

General Order No.11, WASHINGTON, D.C., May 5, 1868

1. The 30th day of May, 1868, is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village, and hamlet church-yard in the land. In this observance no form of ceremony is prescribed, but posts and comrades will in their own way arrange such fitting services and testimonials of respect as circumstances may permit.

We are organized, comrades, as our regulations tell us, for the purpose among other things, "of preserving and strengthening those kind and fraternal feelings which have bound together the soldiers, sailors, and marines who united to suppress the late rebellion." What can aid more to assure this result than cherishing tenderly the memory of our heroic dead, who made their breasts a barricade between our country and its foes? Their soldier lives were the reveille of freedom to a race in chains, and their deaths the tattoo of rebellious tyranny in arms. We should guard their graves with sacred vigilance. All that the consecrated wealth and taste of the nation can add to their adornment and security is but a fitting tribute to the memory of her slain defenders. Let no wanton foot tread rudely on such hallowed grounds. Let pleasant paths invite the coming and going of reverent visitors and fond mourners. Let no vandalism of avarice or neglect, no ravages of time testify to the present or to the coming generations that we have forgotten as a people the cost of a free and undivided republic.

If other eyes grow dull, other hands slack, and other hearts cold in the solemn trust, ours shall keep it well as long as the light and warmth of life remain to us.

Let us, then, at the time appointed gather around their sacred remains and garland the passionless mounds above them with the choicest flowers of spring-time; let us raise above them the dear old flag they saved from dishonor; let us in this solemn presence renew our pledges to aid and assist those whom they have left among us a sacred charge upon a nation's gratitude, the soldier's and sailor's widow and orphan.

2. It is the purpose of the Commander-in-Chief to inaugurate this observance with the hope that it will be kept up from year to year, while a survivor of the war remains to honor the memory of his departed comrades. He earnestly desires the public press to lend its friendly aid in bringing to the notice of comrades in all parts of the country in time for simultaneous compliance therewith.
3. Department commanders will use efforts to make this order effective.

By order of

JOHN A. LOGAN,
Commander-in-Chief

N.P. CHIPMAN,
Adjutant General

Official:
WM. T. COLLINS, A.A.G.

Since the President's flip flop on the release of the photos his administration had previously agreed to release, pursuant to an order of a Federal court, there has been tremendous debate about what the President said and why as well as what the merits of his arguments for doing so are.  There's really no getting around the fact that this is a flip flop on the President's part.  Nothing has changed from last month when he approved release of the photos.  Not one thing.  Motivation, however, is up for debate and there has been plenty of speculation on that.  There has also been copious debate on the merits of his reasoning for reversing his decision and instead attempting to appeal the case despite already having lost on appeal with the very same arguments in the 2nd circuit.

Be that as it may, there has been much sincere, heated back and forth about whether or not the President's sudden claims for wanting to conceal these photos from public view are "right" or "wrong", "legitimate" or "politically motivated" and the focus has been on that as opposed to what the law requires.  We are, after all, debating how to respond or deal with a court decision here and not a simple political preference.  Once the President changed his position, however, the focus of much of the debate immediately drifted to whether one supports the President or not in many respects and that, I think most would agree, is not where the focus should be.  The release of the photos is intimately bound up in the much larger question that looms over the nation about whether there will be a return to the rule of law, or not, with respect to the now very well known war crimes committed during the Bush years.  The issues of transparency and open government are criticial elements in that larger issue and the President himself said those two issue along with the rule of law would be the "hallmark" of his Presidency. 

There is a titanic struggle taking place right now between those in officialdom who do not want to deal with the crimes of the Bush years, for a variety of self serving reasons, who advocate "moving forward" and vowing to ourselves that we won't repeat those "mistakes" in the future, versus those who believe that the criminal conduct, that we all know took place, is far worse than anything that happened during the Watergate era or since and that the criminal activity conceived and implemented by President Bush and his closest and most powerful advisors was so heinous and barbaric that to fail to investigate those crimes would be a clear violation of our domestic laws and of a number of our treaty obligations.  The latter group believes that if we fail to pursue these crimes according to the law that the very idea of the rule of law in the USA may be irrevocably damaged.  I certainly am among those in the latter group.  The photo release issue is merely a tactical skirmish in this larger battle for the future of the United States.

Despite being "only" a tactical skirmish, the debate over release of the photos is an important one, but it is first and foremost, like the larger context in which it takes place, a debate about the law and what it requires.  In this case we are talking about the Freedom of Information Act and the release, by the government, of public information requested in a lawsuit initiated, and won decisively, by the ACLU. 

The fact that each and every one of the arguments offered by the President for reversing his stand on the photo release and pursuing an appeal has already been rejected twice by the courts gets little attention from those who now, like the President, are focused on the safety of the troops and the supposed negative reaction release of the photos might spark.  Much of the defense of the President's about face is offered as though the reasons had not been previously given to the court and that somehow the question is unsettled or unclear and so needs to be aired.  Well, obviously, in terms of individual, personal opinions the question may not ever be a settled one.  But just as obviously, in terms of the legal status of the arguments involved, all of them offered by the President---every single one---has been settled.  In fact, the legal questions have been so clearly settled that the administration's opinion up until a couple of days ago was that, legally speaking, it was "hopeless" to appeal the decision.  "Hopeless."  That's a pretty unequivocal term and indicates how weak the government arguments have been for suppressing the photos in question.

As mentioned above, the Bush administration previously made all the arguments President Obama now offers and the arguments were unequivocally rejected.  Anyone can read the entire opinion but it is kind of long at 50 pages.  It's online at: http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/legaldocuments/aOrder092905.pdf .  The opinion, written by District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein on this matter in 2005 is not ambiguous with respect to the law in the judgment he handed down.  It is the clarity and lack of gray areas in Judge Hellerstein's decision that caused it to be fully sustained on appeal by the Bush government.  It is also why the Obama government until a few days ago concluded appealing the decision was "hopeless."  I would invite everyone to read it and consider the reasoning the judge lays out so cogently.  You don't need to be a lawyer to get through it.  It is very well written and in plain English. 

For those who aren't likely to try and tackle such a lengthy tome, here are some, IMHO, key excerpts from the judges decision relating to the issue at hand, which, let's not forget, is the release (or not) of the photos.  I have eliminated the more complicated legal notations simply to make the text more readable.  I don't think any meaning is lost by doing so.  You can easily find all the detailed notation and citations by going to the pdf I linked to above.  Please forgive any typos as unintentional.

So please, I invite everyone to actually read what the judge said and thus to understand what the appeal the President is going to pursue seeks to overturn. 

I think that many who would otherwise be inclined to side with the Presidents objections to the release might rethink their position when they consider the court's opinion and the issues as a matter of law as opposed to a test of support for the President, for support of the President is simply a political posture.  The questions raised in the lawsuit are not political they are questions of principle generally and legal principle specifically, questions of transparency, open government and the rule of law.  The question this and several other issues before the public raise, is do you support, as a matter of principle, the rule of law, transparency in government and open government? 

I would suppose that few, if any, of those defending the Obama reasoning felt the same way they do now about the issue when the President supported releasing the photos last month (or even three days ago for that matter) and have only discovered their grave concern for troop safety if these photos are released since the President reversed himself on the issue and they now find themselves following his lead.  To those folks I'd say try to roll it back a week when we were all on the same page and see if you don't find Judge Hellerstein, transparency, open government and the rule of law more persuasive than the arguments this and the immediate and loathed past President offer for suppressing the photos.

From Page 40 of the decision:

With the exception of the small number of Darby photographs that I ordered to be withheld, where the risk of exposure is too great and the informational value is minimal, the balancing analysis weighs in favor of disclosure in the present case.  There is a substantial public interest in these pictures, evidence by the active public debate engendered by the versions previously leaked to the press, or otherwise obtained by the media.  See discussion in section (c) of this Opinion, infra.  Moreover, the government concedes that wrongful conduct has occurred.   Defs.' Br., at 70-72.  Plaintiffs assert that they seek release of the Darby photographs to inform the public, and to spark debate about the causes and forces that led to the breakdown of command discipline at Abu Ghraib prison and, possibly, by extension, to other prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, and perhaps elsewhere.  These are the very purposes that FOIA is intended to advance.  The photographs are sought to "shed light on an agency's performance of its statutory duties" and to "contribut [e] significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government."  As I remarked at oral argument:

Photographs present a different level of detail and a different medium, and are the best evidence that the public could have as to what occurred at a particular time, better than testimony, which can be self-serving, better than summaries, which can be misleading, and better even than a full description no matter how complete that description might be.

From page 43-44 of the decision:

Plaintiffs and amici curiae, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and other prominent news organizations, object to my consideration of the government's eleventh-hour argument in reliance on Exemption 7(F).  See proposed Br. Amici Curiae, filed Aug. 3, 2005.  Amici argue that the exemption now pressed by the government could have been presented much earlier, certainly by the date of oral argument in May, and that its invocation at this late date delays the ultimate resolution of the issues.  Amici contend that the government's supplemental argument is not made in "good faith" and should not be considered by the court.

The issue of the physical safety of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and of the citizens of those countries, has been of paramount concern throughout this case, and it is sensible to address the issue squarely under the framework advanced by the government.  The parties agreed to an expedited briefing schedule in order to minimize delays.

The government contends that publication of the Darby photographs pursuant to court order is likely to incite violence against our troops and Iraqi and Afghan personnel and civilians, and that redactions will not avert the danger.  The government argues that the terrorists will use the re-publication of the photographs as a pretext for further acts of terrorism.  See, Second Amended Decl. of Richard B. Myers, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, dated Aug. 25, 2005.  (stating that the "insurgents will use any means necessary to incite violence and, specifically, will focus on perceived U.S. or Coalition mistreatment of Iraqi civilians and detainees as a propaganda and recruiting tool to aid their cause," and that "redaction of the photographs and videos will not alleviate or lessen this risk,")  Plaintiffs, on the other hand, provide the declaration of a scholar on the Middle East who states that, in his opinion, "there is nothing peculiar about Muslim culture in Iraq or elsewhere that would make people react to these pictures in a way different from other people's reactions elsewhere in the world."  Decl. of Khaled Fahmy, Prof., New York Univ., dated Aug. 4, 2005.  In addition, Professor Fahmy suggests that there is a large group of Iraqis, and of Muslims generally, who respond favorably when we show the openness of our society and the accountability of our government officials, and that we would suppress those values and that favorable response by preventing publication of the Darby photographs.

Our nation does not surrender to blackmail, and fear of blackmail is not a legally sufficient argument to prevent us from performing a statutory command.  Indeed, the freedoms that we champion are as important to our success in Iraq and Afghanistan as the guns and missiles with which our troops are armed.

From Page 45 of the decision:

The terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan do not need pretexts for their barbarism; they have proven to be aggressive and pernicious in their choice of targets and tactics. They have driven exploding trucks into groups of children at play and men seeking work; they have attacked doctors, lawyers, teachers, judges and legislators as easily as soldiers.  Their pretexts for carrying out violence are patent hypocrisies, clearly recognized as such except by those who would blur the clarity of their own vision.  With great respect to the concerns expressed by General Myers, my task is not to defer to our worst fears, but to interpret and apply the law, in this case, the Freedom of Information Act, which advances values important to our society, transparency and accountability in government.

From Page 47-50 of the decision:

With regard to Living Rivers, the inundation maps were compiled by the Bureau of Reclamation to "maintain law and order and protect persons and property within Reclamation project and on Reclamation lands" by protecting and alerting threatened communities, again a nexus to law enforcement in that context.  However, there is no such nexus with respect to the Darby photographs.  The Darby photographs are being withheld, not to protect anyone involved in the courts marital investigations and prosecutions, but for another purpose.  The person who took the photographs, or handed them over to commanding officers, do not ask for protection.  Law enforcement officials charged with investigating the circumstances that surrounded the taking of the Darby photographs do not ask for protection, and there is no allegation that release of the photographs will endanger their lives.   And since the identifying characteristics of the detainees are to be redacted, they too are not endangered.  The sole justification for suppressing the photographs is the DOD's concern about speech---generally, how some might exploit the Darby photographs, in propaganda and in terrorist activities, by arguing, though false extension, that the pictures represent the attitudes of all American soldiers, or indeed of all Americans, toward the Iraqi people.

It is not necessary for me to rule if Larouche and Living Rivers are, or are not, appropriate extensions of Exemption 7 (F).  I reject, however, the government's argument that reasoning must stop once a threat to life or safety is discerned.  Balancing and evaluation are essential aspects of the judicial function, no less in considering the exemptions of FOIA than in other areas of the law.  It is clear to me that the core values that Exemption 7 (F) was designed to protect are not implicated by the release of the Darby photographs, but that the core values of FOIA are very much implicated.

The interest at stake arises from pictures of flagrantly improper conduct by American soldiers---forcing prisoners under their charge to pose in a manner that compromised their humanity and dignity.  As I stated at the time of the original argument, and as I reiterated previously in this decision, the pictures are the best evidence of what happened, better than words, which might fail to describe, or summaries, which might err in their attempt to generalize and abbreviate.  Publication of the photographs is central to the purpose of FOIA because they initiate debate, not only about the improper and unlawful conduct of American soldiers, "rogue" soldiers, as they have been characterized, but also about other important questions as well---for example, the command structure that failed to exercise discipline over the troops, and the person in that command structure whose failures in exercising supervision may make them culpable along with the soldier who were court-martialed for perpetrating the wrongs; the poor training that did not create patterns of proper behavior and that failed to reach or distinguish between conduct that was proper and improper; the regulations and orders that governed the conduct of military forces engaged in guarding prisoners; the treatment of prisoners in other areas and place of detention; and other related questions.

Suppression of information is the surest way to cause its significance to grow and persist.  Clarity and openness are the best antidotes, either to dispel criticism if not merited, or if merited, to correct such errors as may be found.  The fight to extend freedom has never been easy, and we are once again challenged, in Iraq and Afghanistan, by terrorists who engage in violence to intimidate our will and to force us to retreat.  Our struggle to prevail must be without sacrificing the transparency and accountability of government and military officials.  These are the values FOIA was intended to advance, and they are the very heart of the values for which we fight in Afghanistan and Iraq.  There is a risk that the enemy will seize upon the publicity of the photographs and seek to use such publicity as a pretext for enlistments and violent acts.  But the education and debate that such publicity will foster will strengthen our purpose and, by enabling such deficiencies as may be perceived to be debated and corrected, show our strength as a vibrant and functioning democracy to be emulated.

In its most recent discussion of FOIA, the Supreme Court commented that "FOIA is often explained as a means for citizens to know what 'their Government is up to.'  The sentiment is far from a convenient formalism.  It defines a structural necessity in a real democracy."  As President Bush said, we fight to spread freedom so the freedoms of Americans will be made more secure.  It is in compliance with these principles, enunciated by both the President and the highest court in the land, that I order the government to produce the Darby photographs that I have determined are responsible and appropriately redacted.

I know it is painful for many to come to terms with the fact that our new President is simply falling in line behind Bush's policies on a number of fronts.  Nowhere is that tendency more disappointing than when it comes to any area that could be considered "national security."  With the exception of release of the torture memos which was the right thing to do, the new administration has repeatedly adopted the Bush line on several legal matters pertaining to torture, detainee abuses, and the intrusive police state power of domestic spying, not just on a few citizens but on us all.  All of these choices fly in the face of what the President promised he would do as a candidate and represent a dramatic about face in each instance.

There simply is no getting around the fact that even though we have a different President, it is quite clear that in the case of his flip flop on the release of the detainee abuse photos, our new President is simply adopting the very same arguments that the Bush administration offered to the courts and the public with little success and zero credibility.  I can only believe that many people are willing to believe the very same arguments when delivered by our current President even though they would never have accepted them from Bush simply because they want to give him the benefit of the doubt and they do not want to believe he is doing what it appears he is doing and which he said he was not in favor of.

We must remember that the facts have not changed in any way.  President Obama less than a month ago approved moving forward with the release of the photos in question because any further appeal was "hopeless."  Now, in a sudden flip flop, the security and safety of the troops is endangered when previously it was not?  Pretty thin excuse if you ask me.

The ACLU has been fighting this fight for years based on principle and on facts.  From day one the ACLU position on this has been correct and proper and necessary.  It remains so.  While the occupant of the White House has changed, neither the principles involved nor the facts in the case have changed.  President Obama campaigned specifically against the secrecy and opacity of the Bush administration in all respects, but specifically in cases just such as this.  Suddenly, however, what candidate Obama deplored only a few short months ago, President Obama is in favor of.  Something about all this doesn't smell right to me.  One of the oldest tricks in the Washington playbook is to claim national security reasons when the objective is simply to keep embarassing facts and evidence hidden from public view.   Everyone acknowledges that is what was happening under Bush, but not everyone is ready to believe that is the case under President Obama.  Given that there has been absolutely no change in the facts, an honest assessment of the situation must conclude there really is no difference between the Bush position on the detainee photos and the Obama adminstration's position.

Despite the plethora of articles and reports on this issue yesterday and today, one voice we hear only a little bit from is that of the ACLU itself.  I went to their website and found the following statement from the President of the ACLU regarding the President's flip flop on the issue of release of the detainee abuse photos.  He makes the argument for release very well and it should be more widely considered.  I recommend it to others in an attempt to put the debate back on the issues in the hopes that it will help people to focus on what the court case was always about and what it continues to be about.  It is difficult to conclude that the most recent argument of the "safety of the troops" is anything more than just the latest straw being grasped for by a government embarassed of it's actions and fearing that exposure of it's crimes will discredit it and possibly lead to prosecutions for all those involved/responsible and not just the grunts on the ground.

ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero

said in a statement this afternoon:

The Obama administration's adoption of the stonewalling tactics and opaque policies of the Bush administration flies in the face of the president's stated desire to restore the rule of law, to revive our moral standing in the world and to lead a transparent government. This decision is particularly disturbing given the Justice Department's failure to initiate a criminal investigation of torture crimes under the Bush administration.

It is true that these photos would be disturbing; the day we are no longer disturbed by such repugnant acts would be a sad one. In America, every fact and document gets known -- whether now or years from now. And when these photos do see the light of day, the outrage will focus not only on the commission of torture by the Bush administration but on the Obama administration's complicity in covering them up. Any outrage related to these photos should be due not to their release but to the very crimes depicted in them. Only by looking squarely in the mirror, acknowledging the crimes of the past and achieving accountability can we move forward and ensure that these atrocities are not repeated.

If the Obama administration continues down this path, it will betray not only its promises to the American people, but its commitment to this nation's most fundamental principles. President Obama has said we should turn the page, but we cannot do that until we fully learn how this nation veered down the path of criminality and immorality, who allowed that to happen and whose lives were mutilated as a result. Releasing these photos -- as painful as it might be -- is a critical step toward that accounting. The American people deserve no less.

Officialdom is now sniffing in disapproval and looking down it's long nose at the "poor taste" of Wanda Sykes for making two jokes about a bloated fascist demagogue during her performance at the White House Correspondents Dinner.  These are the same people of course, that are having a hard time figuring out if we should actually follow the law and investigate an illegal program of torture conceived and implemented by the Bush/Cheney White House. 

The current White House, of course, has to position itself in a way that seems above anything even appearing to be unfair, thus, even though the President and all his people in attendance laughed at the jokes (because they were funny) they have predictably distanced the President from Wanda's remarks.  The rest of it, coming from the media and the villagers is just bald faced hypocrisy.  They could be honest and say that Rush Limbaugh deserves that and much, much more, but they don't have the spine.  Wanda has more balls than the entire Washington Press Corps.  The truth is they are terrified of Limbaugh and she isn't at all afraid of the fat loudmouth from Cape Girardeau.

I saw the video more than once and what Wanda said was both funny and perfectly appropriate. 

Limbaugh is an asshole no matter how you look at it.  There's just no way around that conclusion.  If you just take a look at his track record there really is nothing that can be said about him that is unfair to that creepy, fat guy on the radio who says the most hateful and bigoted things all the time.  There really is very little that can be said about that ignorant buffoon that is too much or over the top. 

He is a racist plain and simple.  He is unpatriotic and hateful to our soldiers if they do not agree with him.   He openly supported all kinds of illegal and unconsitutional efforts by the worst crooks in the Bush regime.  This is a man with absolutely no moral character at all who was stopped at the border with a bag full of viagra coming home from a Latin American country known for making underage prostitutes available to wealthy Americans.   Whadya think he was up to huh?  A fact finding mission no doubt...  This is a man who slithered out of jail time for his illegal drug purchases, use and possession of what they call redneck heroin only because he is worth many hundreds of millions of dollars.  This is a man who has never apologized for his gutless and sickening mocking of a man with Parkinson's disease, who has laughed about the bombing and killing of foreign nationals, who has equated the torture of Abu Ghraib with fraternity hazing.  And this man who is so full of courage and vinegar when it comes to sending our young people to their deaths on foreign soil, when his country called him to service during Viet Nam, he was such a pussy that he used a cyst on his ass as an excuse to make him ineligible for service.  A cyst on his ass!  What a pathetic coward!

No folks, I'm sorry.  What Wanda said was a-okay with me because she is a comedian.  Her jokes were caustic and funny, but her jokes about Limbaugh were not only not over the top but well deserved and long overdue!  It was not in bad taste for her to say what she said after all of the horrible things he has said and done to so many over the years and which he will, no doubt, continue to do.  Are we now to be mindful of his feelings as though he were a regular, decent human being instead of treating him like the plague upon the nation that he is?  This guy ridiculed the widows of 9/11 victims for God's sake!  Go easy on him?  No thanks!  I'd rather treat him like the scum he is.  Wanda Sykes deserves our thanks not our disapproval!  She did a great job and even if ya didn't like those two jokes you would have to say she did her job that night very, very well.  She's talented, funny and right on the money!

What is most telling though, about this little incident, is the cowardice and false concern of officialdom in condeming Wanda for making the biggest ass in America the butt of a couple of jokes.  They did the same thing to Colbert a couple of years ago after he gave a brilliant, razor sharp critique not only of the tyrant Bush and his administration but also of the media who failed so miserably to do their jobs for all those years.  Wanda should feel honored that the same cowards and poltroons of the establishment who didn't see the humor in Colbert's routine are made uncomfortable by what she said.  She just picked up where Stephen Colbert left off is all.

Rock on Wanda!

Last night I attended the St. Louis Symphony Orchestra's performance of Beethoven's 9th Symphony and it was nothing short of fabulous!  The St. Louis Symphony is one of the great symphonies in America and every bit of it's excellence was on display in this fantastic rendition of the brilliant 9th Symphony.

If you like Beethoven or if you like the 9th in particular I would encourage you to listen this evening to a live broadcast of this evening's performance which includes 4 incredible soloists and a magnificent and talented choir of well over a hundred voices.  Last night they were outstanding and my guess is, if anything, they will be even better tonight.

Tonight (Saturday evening May 9) you can listen to this live performance at 8 p.m. Central time on the internet to the St. Louis Symphony.  You will not be disappointed. 

The symphony will be broadcasting from Powell Symphony Hall one block north of the Fabulous Fox Theatre in St. Louis.

You can tune in to the broadcast on KFUO 99.1 FM in St. Louis or go here on the internet:

http://www.classic99.com/listennow.htm

The station is broadcasting all day today nothing but the SLSO and they will also be broadcasting the Conductor's pre-concert lecture prior to the performance.  So, pour yourself a glass of wine, turn up your speakers and... enjoy friends!