Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion

Congressman John Garamendi‘s district is strongly progressive, having re-elected Ellen Tauscher repeatedly. So, you’d think that Garamendi, a new member of the House of representatives, just elected a couple months ago in a special election, would try to follow in Tauscher’s progressive footsteps.

Not so. Last week, Representative Garamendi voted to extend the Patriot Act’s worst spying abuses against Americans without any reforms at all.

What was John Garamendi thinking, giving his endorsements to one of the most flagrant violations of the Constitution under George W. Bush? Did he think his vote would escape attention? Did he think no one would protest, just because he’s a Democrat?

Will Garamendi’s calculation end up being correct? Will Democrats simply vote for Garamendi because he’s a Democrat, no matter how anti-progressive his voting record in Congress turns out to be?

Congressman Michael Arcuri is asking Democrats in New York’s 24th district to re-elect him again this year, but really, why should Democrats bother to support Arcuri?

Mike Arcuri has opposed climate legislation, and worked to help the Republicans block health care reform last year until the Tea Party movement could sink it. Last week, Congressman Arcuri voted to extend George W. Bush’s Patriot Act, without any reforms whatsoever.

Blue Dog Arcuri is no friend of the causes that Democratic voters care about. Why should Democrats help him keep a hold on his seat in Congress?

Last year, we warned about the electoral implications of the nomination of Martha Coakley to the U.S. Senate. Coakley supported the Patriot Act, alienating the progressive base of the Democratic Party. Mike Capuano, who was one of the few to vote against the Patriot Act back in 2001, would have been a much better choice, and could have rallied Democratic voters to beat Scott Brown.

All that’s history now. What’s not history is the Patriot Act.

Just last week, the House of Representatives voted to pass an extension of the Patriot Act without any reforms at all, sneaking the vote in as an approval of an unspecified amendment to a Medicare bill.

Two-thirds of the House Democrats voted with the Republicans to approve the reform-free extension of Patriot Act spying powers that the government uses against Americans. Mike Capuano was not one of them. Capuano voted against the perpetuation of George W. Bush’s spying programs.

“You may recall that in 2001, I voted against the Patriot Act because I strongly believed that it did not do enough to protect our cherished civil liberties. I continue to have serious concerns about some of its provisions,” Capuano wrote, explaining his vote. “I want to be clear that it is important to give law enforcement the tools they need to pursue criminals. However, there is a way to do that and still recognize the importance of civil liberties – and such a solution is not currently being pursued by the House and Senate.”

Thank you, Representative Capuano, for taking a stand against the politics of fear.

The re-election campaign web site for Congressman John Conyers claims that Conyers stands against the Patriot Act. It tells how Conyers has reacted to the Patriot Act in the past, reading, “The Bush Administration was not satisfied with a bill that gave it everything it needed; it sacrificed his good faith negotiations and bipartisanship for a bill that had everything it wanted. What the Administration wanted was the ability to conduct secret searches of suspects (also known as “sneak-and-peek” searches), to monitor our reading habits by getting records from libraries and bookstores, and to detain non-citizens indefinitely. To accomplish this, the Administration and the House Republican leadership threw away the bipartisan bill from the Committee and wrote a new one in secret; the new bill, known as the USA PATRIOT Act, was given to the Congress the very morning it was voted on and was not disclosed to the public until much later. The secrecy in which it was written and the extreme provisions it contained were what called for Mr. Conyers to vote against the frightfully-named USA PATRIOT Act.

Unfortunately, the Administration’s war on terrorism proved that his vote was the right one. When Mr. Conyers asked the Justice Department how it has used its sneak-and-peek authority, it cannot tell of one act of terrorism that has been prevented. When Mr. Conyers asked the Department how often it has sought patron records from libraries and bookstores, it responds by saying the very number of times is classified so that the information cannot be disclosed to the public.”

That sounds like a strong stand in opposition to the Patriot Act, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, making sounds is one thing. Action is another.

Yesterday, John Conyers voted to extend the Patriot Act without reforming it at all.

Recently, I was asked: What can I do today, to start to make a difference? What can the average American do to have their voice heard? I have given these questions a lot of thought, because they are questions I ask myself.  My conclusion: There are more average Americans than any other kind of American and as the dominate culture you would think we’d have some say in how our country is governed. 

 I am told: There has always been war, oppression, exploitation and there will always be.

 I have been told this behavior is human nature and we are incapable of escaping it.

 My friends, there are more than six billion people on this planet and I guarantee you more than six billion people have no desire to wage war, murder, rape, maim, oppress, or cause suffering to their fellow human beings.  Most of us want to lead lives of love and spiritual fulfillment and to watch our children grow up healthy and happy. 

 So what can the average American do?

 First, we must find our collective voice through an ongoing dialogue with each other.  We must use our eyes, ears, and minds to draw our own conclusions from the facts and not adopt the perceptions of the popular media or the political and religious pundits.  Our political views and religious beliefs should guide us from within, not be defined by others whose agendas can never truly be known.  Once we have found our voice we must make it heard.  We must continue our dialogue with ever growing numbers of people.  To make the dialogue meaningful, we must take the risk of moving beyond our comfortable social groups and find out what we have in common with others

 Second, we must plan to act within our sphere of influence.  This means not focusing our frustration and collective energies on other nations’ governments.  We need to start pressuring our own.  Our Government would like us to focus on situations such as the Congo (a very important issue) and to leave them alone to pretend to nobility by issuing a few lines of disgust at the situation—disseminated by the official propaganda machine of the US Government known as the Fourth Estate or the so-called “free press” owned by the very corporations that not only support the atrocities that are inflicted on our brothers and sisters outside our borders, but profit from them.

 Let us take a brief look at our current “elected” officials.  They are liars and traitors.  This might sound like the rank and file liberal politician-bashing, but I ask you to stop and think. 

 Our “representatives” speak with soaring rhetoric promising the next “Great Society.” They speak of American values, “enlightened self interests, and our moral ascendency in the world. 

 We believe them. 

 They say they will not be controlled by the tax-dodging, multi-national corporations and special interest groups. 

 We believe them. 

 They tell us to vote for responsible change. 

 We do.

 And then. . . they get elected.

 And we hear words like “pragmatism.”  We are told of the culture of Washington, D.C. and how they must compromise to get things done. We are asked to trust them. We are told they are trying hard to do their best. Think on this – every last one of them claims victimization to this circumstance.  If they all agree—and I mean all of them—it is the culture of D.C. that will not allow change without pandering to the corporate interests, I ask: “What is the source of this culture?”  If it is not them, from where does it issue?  Having said that, it stands to reason our government is not in the hands of our elected officials, and it has been clear for some time we are not running it, then, I ask you: “WHO IS?”

 Perhaps it is the free market ideology. We are told that market forces are the purveyor of democracy.  We are told our choices are what determine and drive the market. We are led to believe every time we make a choice it is a vote for the continuation of the free market.  The free market corporations have stolen our democracy, for it is they who determine which choices are available.  If my choices are limited to Exxon or Chevron, Coke or Pepsi, McDonald’s or Burger King, Wal-Mart or Albertson’s, Democrat or Republican, Heads or Tails (it is all the same bloody coin), what choices do I really have? It is the media working hand-in-hand with corporations and marketing firms to present us with the choice of candidates for the government of the United States and the choice of perceptions and frames of reference we may consider when expressing support or dissention.   (Read more: The FCC’s Christmas Gift to Big Media)

 This is Democracy?

 There are circumstances where we are given impossible choices or no choice at all.  For example, with insufficient or non-existent alternative transportations, for the purpose of getting to work, seeking healthcare (for those who can afford it), or even gathering our food and clothing, many of us are forced to purchase and maintain cars.  Thus, we are forced to support the most sinister corporations on the planet.  Since I own a car, is it    my desire the rivers and lakes be polluted, human beings be exploited, displaced, poisoned, and sometimes even murdered?   Does this mean I willingly support criminal wars?

 No.

 However, I, not having fought to change the structure of my society and because my continuing lifestyle aids and abets these corporate monsters, I share a measure of the guilt, as do my American brothers and sisters, which, if there be a final judgment, no measure of charity and repentance can wash clean the stain of innocent blood from our clothes, our hands, our souls, unless we stand together now to end this madness and put people before profit and our own material comforts.

 The United States is, at present, involved in two wars, one in Afghanistan and the other in Iraq.  It is threatening a third with Pakistan, has made recent aggressive overtures toward Iran and Yemen.  Our closest ally, Israel, with our financial and military support is engaged in a slow genocide of the Palestinian people. I am amazed the most passionate American national dialogue other than Dancing with the Stars and the latest fad diet is whether or not popular television personality Ellen DeGeneres should be allowed to be married to Portia De Rossi.

 If we fail to reclaim our republic, we will lose it.  Each day it slips a little further away. 

 There is hope.

 If 300,000,000+ Americans demand change, it will happen. 

 However, if we are waiting for those in power to bestow benevolent change upon us, we will wait forever.  What will compel them to change?  Are we to assume they are truly the wisest among us?  Do we mistake them for the enlightened?  These are people who actually debate the value of assuring children a lunch at school. Do you believe that? I don’t even have to go into where they think that money is worth spending.  Have you heard of Depleted Uranium Devices? Cluster Bombs? Nuclear Missiles? Wall Street Bail Out?

 Look issues up on the internet, read opinions, sort through the garbage, do your homework, find the facts and draw your own conclusions.  NBC, ABC, FOX, CBS are all owned by the very corporations that benefit from providing good people with bad information to increase corporate profits exponentially into perpetuity.  We must no longer allow the corporations and businesses to present our representatives to us, to limit us to Coke or Pepsi.  We must find our representatives from amongst ourselves and assure they are beholden to none other than their constituents.

 We must avoid and end term limits.  Why should an excellent public servant not be allowed to devote his or her life to making America a better country?  Term limits can only serve big business.  Think about it.  Good public servants are ousted arbitrarily and people who are elected are concerned about their careers afterward.  Does this not open the door to “networking” prior to leaving office? With term limits, does it not benefit the politician to consider the needs of a large company or industry that will see to his or her future livelihood?  Someone doing the people’s work for life would be less inclined to seek out such a patron.

 Open the dialogue where ever you gather with people.  Talk to those at your church, synagogue, mosque, and political gatherings.  Talk about it in the pubs, coffee houses and AA groups, on blogs, Twitter, and Facebook. Start journals and newsletters.  The time to act is not far off, but we all must act together.

 We can fight for change or we can remain cowards hiding behind our own rhetoric of fear and powerlessness.  The government must be made to understand that if it continues to twist and ignore the Constitution, if it continues to stomp on the democratic rights of the People, it will be brought down!  It is the fundamental responsibility of all people living in a democracy to dissolve a government when it becomes unresponsive to the will of, or oppressive of, its people. 

 Make no mistake. We are not the government’s people – it is the People’s Government. If the Congress thinks differently, if the White House is offended, if the military, FBI and CIA don’t like it, they must be dismantled and replaced.

hoc opus, hic labor est

Erik. F. Kreis

 © 2009

Recommended reading for tonight should get you fired up for this shortened work week: Glenn Greenwald points out the hypocrisy of the Global Online Freedom Act, which it turns out isn’t so global.

The proposed law targets regimes like China and Iran for their use of the Internet to spy on citizens, while ignoring the fact that the United States government does the same using laws like the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act.

The Catholic Church has already received a substantial concession from the Washington D.C. City Council in the struggle over legislation that would grant marriage equality to all residents, regardless of sexual orientation. In order to placate the Catholic church’s lobbyists, the Council placed exemptions for religious organizations. If the law passes, churches won’t be required to treat people equally. They’ll be allowed to continue their policies of hateful disregard.

Oh, but that’s not enough for the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington D.C. The Archdiocese is now threatening to withhold services for poor people if marriage equality legislation becomes law.

The D.C. City Council has responded with a great deal more dignity than the Catholic Church seems able to muster. Council members say that if the Catholic Church wants to stop being charitable, then the City Council will simply step forward and make up the difference itself, but it will not allow any organization’s threats to interfere with the constitutional rights of the citizens of D.C.

An extremely cynical trick by the leadership of the Senate Judiciary Committee was picked up on today by That’s My Congress, our congressional research arm. It seems that Senator Leahy and Senator Feinstein thought that they could pull the wool over the eyes of America’s librarians.

America’s librarians have been ringing the alarm for years, noting that they are being served with huge numbers of National Security Letters enabling the FBI to keep records on the books being read by ordinary Americans who are not suspected of any crime. Leahy thought that he could placate them by throwing them a distraction.

Leahy put his support behind an amendment that would provide a few protections for libraries when it comes to Patriot Act Section 215 database seizures of records by the FBI. He said that ought to be enough for people who wanted restrictions of the Patriot Act. Sound good? Go read the previous paragraph over again, then, and think about it.

It’s not Section 215 seizures that are the problem when it comes to libraries. Senator Dick Durbin revealed today that the FBI has decided to use National Security Letters, not Section 215 powers, to seize private information about Americans’ reading habits from public libraries.

Guess how Senator Leahy arranged to get his bill, S. 1692, to extent the Patriot Act through committee – with no reform of National Security Letters in libraries. Leahy only put small reforms on a tool that the FBI doesn’t use anyway! The National Security Letters, the method that the FBI actually uses to run roughshod over the constitutional rights of people who use libraries, were untouched.

That he would engage in a tactic so transparently deceptive is a sign that Senator Patrick Leahy doesn’t have any respect for libraries, for the intelligence of the American people, or for our constitutional rights. Vermont voters, Patrick Leahy has embraced the dark totalitarian vision of George W. Bush. He doesn’t deserve to be re-elected to the United States Senate in 2010.

The Reuters headline reads:

Wall Street bets on stimulus after job cuts

and all of a sudden the worrying thought occurs to me: Are we rewarding job cuts? Is it that corporations are learning that, if they’ll go on and cut enough jobs so that people believe in the reality of an economic crisis, the government will then come along and then give them lots of money?

Are we encouraging corporations to kick people to the curb?

Want to know what’s wrong with proposition 8? Ask Simon the Political Tiger.

It’s a matter of the Constitution, see. The Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law to all people. That means that the law has to give everyone equal status, without discrimination. That includes same-sex couples. If heteros get to marry, then homosexual couples need to be given that same right.

No state has the right, through its legislature or through an electoral proposition, to overrule the Constitution’s equal protection clause. Prop 8 tries to do just that – and that’s what makes it an insult not just to same-sex couples, but to all Americans who believe in the freedoms and rights that the Constitution guarantees.