I wake up singing a song I think I made up and Emily joins in. Apparently cancer free and on the mend, but still in pain and with too many tubes coming out of her.
Here's a piece of mine published by Newsday at the height of the Clinton impeachment, February 12, 1998. A friend on Facebook just posted a graphic with Petraeus "War is the Real Scandal" -- the more things don't change, the more they stay the same....
The Dogs of War
By Sam Husseini
By Sam Husseini
Is the White House moving towards bombing Iraq to distract from the Lewinsky matter, following the script of the film Wag the Dog? Or does the media's fervent pursuit over Lewinsky illustrate how servile the media are on Iraq?
As journalists parse every utterance by administration officials regarding President Clinton's alleged promiscuity - and then flog themselves for their own compulsiveness - rationales for the US's Iraq policy go unchallenged. The administration's claim that it is working tirelessly for "Mideast peace" even as it revs up the missiles elicits few queries.
While the President is hounded about his personal affairs, little scrutiny is given to the effects of the sanctions on millions of innocent Iraqis.
Just as the Lewinsky story was breaking, 54 US Bishops sent a letter to Clinton voicing their "profound moral concerns about the US-led sanctions against the people of Iraq. In conscience, we urge you to call for the immediate lifting of the sanctions by the UN Security Council, to end all US support for these sanctions, and to refrain from any military action in the current dispute."
Such critics of US government policy are rendered all but invisible on TV, as we are told that there is American unanimity here. Clinton and Gingirch agree -- could there be a debate? At least in Wag the Dog, there was an actual opposition party.
The media are watchdogs - or attack dogs - on Clinton when it comes to his personal life, but they are lapdogs on Iraq.
Assaults on Iraq during and since "Desert Storm" were much less accurate than claimed. Still, reporters like John McWethy of ABC News, who falsely fingered Arabs for both the Oklahoma City bombing and the TWA 800 crash, are devouring stories of glorious new missiles that will destroy chemical facilities without harming civilians. No questions asked.
And UNSCOM head Richard Butler is treated with a deference Ken Starr must envy despite his provocative comments about the prospect of Iraq blowing away Tel Aviv as well as bigoted statements about Arabs being devious.
Some of us did not have to wait for George Bush to discover in 1990 that Saddam Hussein was a rabid dictator. Crimes now cited by politicians and pundits as reason for war - gassing the Kurds and Iranians - were committed by Hussein while he was in many ways a US ally. Hussein did not use weapons of mass destruction during the Gulf War, though he clearly had the opportunity.
Most everyone agrees that the President is not above the law. Yet, even as the US demands that Iraq abide by every twist and turn of UN dictates, the US undermines the UN consensus, avoiding negotiations, pushing for war and insisting on the economic sanctions even as the international community seeks to ease them.
Will the US lose credibility if it does not strike? That is already occurring, as the US turns a blind eye to Israel's 200 nuclear weapons and Israel and Turkey's violations of UN Security Council resolutions. A dwindling few leaders worldwide take statements of US principle seriously. Rather, deals are likely being cut with other nations so the US military can have its way in Iraq.
Jobs at Revlon are small potatoes.
Any inconsistency in the intern scandal is quickly highlighted, but can anyone keep up with the administration signals on when it will lift the economic sanctions? Will it be when the inspectors are allowed back into Iraq? Or when they are allowed into "the palaces"? Or when Iraq abides by all UN resolutions, including paying hundreds of billions in reparations? Or when Hussein is overthrown? Or never?
In the narrow media debate, some pundits advise slaying Hussein. Others, ignoring the current sanctions policy, a cruelly blunt instrument which has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, argue that assassination would be "immoral." A journalistic pack howls for war as cruise missile bombings are dubbed "pinpricks." One wonders how that would sound if one of our cities were struck by one. And the meager "oil for food" deal does more to make policy makers feel good than ordinary Iraqis.
If President Clinton does decide to attack Iraq to divert from the allegations regarding Lewinsky, it will in fact bear no resemblance to the movie Wag the Dog where a war is faked. The missiles will be quite deadly, the blood will be all too real.
Sam Husseini is Media Director for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
The idea of VotePact.org is a simple one: principled progressives and conscientious conservatives -- instead of cancelling out each other's votes, one for Obama, the other for Romney -- should make a pact in pairs and both vote for the third party(s) that better reflect their beliefs.
But the implications of it can be far reaching:
VotePact overcomes the demonization of "the other" -- people voting for Obama/Romney because they have been induced to be so repelled by Romney/Obama. VotePact ends the isolation of the individual in the voting booth, torn against themselves. They are forced to either sell their conscience short by voting for an establishment candidate they don't believe in or vote for a third party candidate who seems to have no plan for winning and possibly for governing -- and possibly helping the establishment candidate they most detest.
Some rationalize (myself included at times) that they are in a "safe" state, and that's fine so far as it goes, but it's hardly a satisfying solution -- so if you lived in a "swing" state your conscience would have a different price? It's also not really a strategy since it concedes actual electoral victory to the establishment party and punts the quandary to the next election.
Thus, VotePact is victory, or can be. It's a route to a literal win for the third party challenge with the nerve and the insight to build a campaign around it -- reaching out from the radical center rather than a margin.
This is because VotePact can be political realignment, finding a New Center that is pro-peace, pro-civil liberties, anti-Wall Street, anti-poverty, anti-Federal Reserve, anti-IMF, anti-WTO, anti-NAFTA and so on -- and revolting against the current establishment center that is on the opposite side on those things. Doubtlessly, there are differences between principled progressives and conscientious conservatives, but those can be honest differences in search of real solutions, not endless political bickering seeking to perpetuate itself for decades.
VotePact can end the bickering within political circles, with pragmatists saying, "we have to get rid of Romney/Obama" and the idealists saying "vote your conscience". Neither is actually pursuing a strategy because the pragmatists are actually capitulationalists, forever trapping themselves in a two party system they claim to be unhappy with -- "why oh why won't Obama listen to us after we've made clear we'll support him no matter what?" -- and the idealists are pursuing something that is either marginal, or actually embraces the role of "spoiler".
VotePact can help save and even build movements. Clearly, with the current dynamics, elections are movement killers. Peace movements, justice movements cannot easily endure the fixation on elections dominated by the establishment parties as the mass of people are compelled to back their lesser evil or feel marginalized. VotePact actually gives movements an outreach mechanism during the election cycle when they need it most.
This is in large part because VotePact is jujitsu. It uses the two-party system's dominance against itself. It answers the question to third party candidates -- "aren't you a spoiler?" -- in a forthright manner, by asking the questioner to look at their own life and finding a friend, neighbor, relative or debate partner to form a VotePact with.
This is freedom and it's love. VotePact is a way people can free themselves from the two party system two at a time. It's done by working with -- and finding love and compassion with -- someone they honestly disagree with. It runs totally counter to a political and media system based on hate: "You must hate Romney/Obama and so you must vote for Obama/Romney." Trust is the one thing they need to find together.
One of my favorite children's stories is "Horton Hears a Who" by Dr. Seuss in which the earnest elephant tries to convince people in "his world" that there are "Whos" in a speck of dust. I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel like Horton sometimes, except I'm trying to show more clearly that there are "Whos" on the other side of the two party divide -- "a person is a person, no matter how ...". And there's a "Who" in you who can come out better by recognizing that person in your life and taking their hand, finding common ground and overcoming the politics of caricature, fear and hate.
Sam Husseini is founder of VotePact.org -- which urges principled progressives and conscientious conservatives to vote for the emerging parties they most agree with rather than cancelling out each other votes for the establishment parties they are each imprisoned by. Many of his writings are at: husseini.posterous.com
Here's a video against Nader, and, in effect other third parties from 2008. It states: "It's not that bad, doesn't Obama make you cry sometimes? He totally makes us cry sometimes. But maybe that's the lesson of 2000: Vote strategically and practically, not an expression of emotion or high minded principle."
Obama never made me cry, but he has made victims of his policies cry. But you should vote strategically and that doesn't just mean backing the establishment Democrats --VotePact.org says disenchanted Demorats and disenchanted Republicans should pair up and both vote for the non-establishment candidates they actually want. So, yes, real strategy, not dumb non-strategy.
Earlier this year President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law. It allows for the indefinite detention without trial for any U.S. citizen deemed to be a terrorist or an accessory to terrorism. Some might have thought that there would be wide-spread revolt among people who voted for Obama against legalized indefinite detention. And there was some protest, mostly led by Chris Hedges (who did not vote for Obama), with some legal victories against the law. But the political success seems to have come from the law itself -- in favor of Obama. Instead of provoking a revolt, the result seems to be this: Obama is in effect telling his supporters: "You better support me more, because I just signed this law saying the president of the U.S. can detain anyone he wants. Now, do you want me to have this power, or do you want Mitt Romney to have this power?" And so, perversely, Obama by signing a law most of his supporters almost certainly didn't want, has actually ensured a greater grip on them. He has in effect indefinitely detained them. Solving a problem in a positive way strengthens the citizenry. Avoiding doing so fosters a continual servitude upon the benevolence of corrupt power. Similar effects are produced by targeting specific "constituencies". Consider: By allegedly deferring final decision on the XL pipeline, environmentalists concerned with climate disruption are further compelled to back Obama -- with no assurance on the issues they presumably care about. But Obama benefits in a sense since this threat of the pipeline is real -- people who care about this issue feel desperate, needing to stop Romney and minimize long term activism that could propel the emergence of the Green Party or another challenge to the mainstream. Similarly, rather than resolving the standoff with Iran, keeping "all options on the table" -- the Obama administration maintains the threat of war at a simmer while assured that "Romney is worse." Because "Obamacare" did not create a new structure, as Medicare and Social Security did, it is largely reversible, so, limited as it was, whatever benefits come from it are largely dependent on Obama winning the election. This extends to dealings with foreign officials as well. The Financial Times recently reported: "Barack Obama has pleaded with Russia’s president for 'space' to deal with the issue of missile defense, saying he would have greater 'flexibility' after the 2012 U.S. election." After Obama stated that he personally favors gay marriage, gay pundit Dan Savage wrote: "Gay people better get out there and support the president. If he loses in November, we'll be blamed." What a cowering stance. This is a world were "constituencies" view themselves as such, not as citizens -- and also, where they are made to work for the politician, not the other way around. Politicians thus are not "public servants" as they frequently depict themselves, but as lords that serfs are made to defend lest another "lord" who is worse prevail. Similar patterns exist on a host of issues from military spending, to immigration, and a related dynamic happens with the Republican Party.The entire structure of political support, of lesser evilism, of operating continuously out of fear, not only stifles dreaming, but the fixation on survival comes at the cost of actually living.
Sam Husseini is founder of VotePact.org -- which urges principled progressives and conscientious conservatives to vote for the emerging parties they most agree with rather than cancelling out each other votes for the establishment parties they are each imprisoned by. Many of his writings are at: husseini.posterous.com
Romney: The U.S. for a "long, long time and has produced the best health records in the world."
Actually, the World Health Organization in the year 2000 put the the U.S. at 37 -- though it is number one in the amount of money it spends per capita on health care.
Obama: "But when Governor Romney says that he’ll replace it with something but can’t detail how it will be in fact replaced, and the reason he set up the system he did in Massachusetts is because there isn’t a better way of dealing with the pre-existing conditions problem."
Of course, the best way to deal with pre-existing conditions would be a truly universal system, like the one Canada has.
Here you'll find the transcript of "debate" -- and I put "debate" in quotes because it's not a debate for real when the two protagonists are trying to out maneuver each other, yes, but largely colluding together to out maneuver facts they both have a mutual aversion to.
In new piece published by Forbes, "East of Eden: Mitt Romney's 2011 Returns," leading tax leading tax analyst Lee Sheppard writes: "one plausible theory of what he might be hiding for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009 is a winning bet against the housing market with his friend and fundraiser John Paulson, chief of the hedge fund Paulson & Co.
"[For the uninitiated, Paulson made $15 billion shorting the mortgage market. To make his short bets, he persuaded Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank to design collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) packed with dodgy subprime mortgages and derivatives based on them. One Goldman deal, Abacus 07-AC1, which was the subject of an SEC case, was a synthetic CDO that held credit default swaps on mortgage-backed securities that were certain to go bad. The case was quietly settled.]"