/> WHAT WILL BE . . .© Farming is Falling, Effecting Food and Family © Be-Think: May 2005

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, IN THE NAME OF OUR LORD ©

At a time when we invoke “God,” fight for religious freedom, incite in the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Allah, and sadly, at times, even Buddha, we are reminded again of the irony. Religion rules; it is often the reason we go to war.

Tonight, on NBC Nightly News a tape was played, a Nixon tape. While in the oval office, HR Halderman and the former President Nixon were discussing the Watergate break-in and all the stories that followed. There was a possible leak. Could it be that Deputy Associate Director and second-in-command at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Mark Felt was the dreaded “deep throat?” Was he their source?

They realized that he could be and likely was. Mr. Felt was the problem. Upon reflection, Mr. Nixon asked, “Is he Catholic?” Halderman replied, “No, he is a Jew.” Ah, Nixon replied, “Christ, put a Jew in there?” That is the problem!

This, and more in a country founded on the principle of separation of church and state!

Please partake in MaxSpeak. He writes "CHRIST, PUT A JEW IN THERE?"HALDEMAN: "WELL THAT COULD EXPLAIN IT."

Monday, May 30, 2005

IN MEMORY OF OUR SOLDIERS, BUSH “MINDFUL” OF WAR ©

On this Memorial Day 2005, as on memorials days in the past, I feel such sorrow. I wish that we were memorializing peace and not war, the living and not those that have passed. I wish that we were as our current President often espouses, “mindful.” My regret is that we, as a nation, speak of harmony while creating conflict. We talk of negotiations and then often forego diplomatic measures. We fight wars to end all wars, and we do this repeatedly.

Today, in honor of the “holiday” my mind drifts. I contemplate the meaning of this homage. I believe that this day is intended for reflection and remembrance. It is a day to recall all of our fallen heroes, those that served in every war. It is a time to reflect upon “battles” and to consider the lives lost. On this occasion, we might ponder what we treasure. Our thoughts will undoubtedly turn to families, those that grieve the loss of their sons, daughters, fathers, and mothers, and know that they will see them no more. At present, my hope is that we will think about the tragedy of having not learned from history.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905

In recent years, our President and his pundits have decided to unilaterally attack, to bomb, to kill, and to maim, as nations of people protest. The United States declared and engages in war. This action was and is taken in the name of “democracy.” American principals profess “goodness” and then, aggressively they order our youth to fight to the death. The President of the United States speaks of the importance of “God.” He claims there is “evil” and that we must destroy it. Yet, for me, the idea of destruction is vice. The result: Memorial Day.

Continue reading "IN MEMORY OF OUR SOLDIERS, BUSH “MINDFUL” OF WAR ©"

Friday, May 27, 2005

“REINVENTED SLAVERY,” ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ©

Today, as I listened to author and border expert Charles Bowden, I was mesmerized. His melodic tone did not capture my attention. His words were spoken almost without articulation. The breathy sound of his voice did not draw me in. However, one could only connect to that hum. It was what he said that affected me.

Mr. Bowden was speaking of the Undocumented War, the war against illegal immigration. In discussing the “economic forces that drive a seemingly endless migration,” Bowden mentioned the "biological unity" of all men. He noted the physical separation that man-made borders create. These boundaries divide us. Bowden offered that our Mexican American perimeter “is a war zone, only no one will admit to the war.” He suggested that we do not “even have the decency to count the causalities.”

Bowden reflects, “no one wants to talk about” what is; it is “the unspeakable problem.” He states that “we pretend” to offer possible solutions, and all the while avoid the real answers. We do not penalize employers at exorbitant rates for employing the undocumented. We do not monitor companies hiring practices well, nor do we endeavor to do so enthusiastically. Therefore, businesses continue to hire those that they need, at prices they are willing to pay. For, in the mind of entrepreneurs, these persons are disposable. They are liquid assets.

Charles Bowden speaks of Americans; he states that we willingly create a second class of citizens. These substandard beings are expected to work and yet not vote. They are not given the means to organize; nor are they allowed to complain. Employers “tolerate” the illegals, pretending not to know of their status. Business “can cheat” the Mexican migrants, “pay them miserable wages, and abuse them.”

Mr. Bowden declares that until we discuss the problems within Mexico, those that affect us all, globally, until we all work to create a strong economic base in Mexico, strong enough to support the people that reside there, we will continually “reinvent slavery.”

This conversation aired on National Pubic Radio, in a program sponsored by American Public Media. Appropriately enough, it can be heard on Marketplace. I thought it an excellent piece, thought provoking, and gripping. Please indulge, listen, and enjoy the reflection.

Thursday, May 26, 2005

AS GREENSPAN GOES, THE GREAT SOCIETY PART II ©

Alan Greenspan is considered the master of money; his words can and do cause the stock market to move. Greenspan is thought to be an economic guru. His forecasts shape the future of America, and the future of the world. Many consider it noteworthy that Greenspan served under several presidents, Republicans and Democrats alike. He was a Federal Reserve Board member under Nixon, Ford, and Reagan and in 1987, President Ronald Reagan appointed him as chair. All presidents have done the same ever since. Some believe Greenspan is independent and bipartisan, however, the Federal Reserve Chairman has his loyalties. “Economic well being for all” is not among these.

Alan Greenspan is a man of principles; principally he is a follower of “rational hedonism.” While Mr. Greenspan has long been a civil servant, his most significant service may have taken place during his formative years. It may be argued that his earlier employ was not the most important, nonetheless, few can dispute that it was the most influential.

Alan Greenspan was an associate and disciple for author and philosopher Ayn Rand. Ms. Rand advocates and writes of “The Virtue of Selfishness.” She actively promotes individualism. Rand rejects the notion of government. Essayist Rand rebuffs the basics of democracy. She unabashedly rebukes the idea of the Great Society; it is contrary to all that she believes. She supports “Objectivism.” She states that her “philosophy is, in essence, the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life.” Encouraging independence is the Rand mission.

Ayn Rand denounces religion. She speaks out against compulsory charity. She expresses strident disapproval for government regulations. In her book, “Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal” she suggests that “altruist” are the embodiment of “evil.” She thinks restrictions inhibit businesses and businesses are the foundation for a flourishing society. Rand considers inflation iniquitous; she explains that government is its source.

Inflation is not caused by the actions of private citizens, but by the government: by an artificial expansion of the money supply required to support deficit spending. No private embezzlers or bank robbers in history have ever plundered people's savings on a scale comparable to the plunder perpetrated by the fiscal policies of statist governments.
Ayn Rand, "Who Will Protect Us From Our Protectors?" The Objectivist Newsletter, May 1952

Ayn Rand declares, “Government has no obligation to the less fortunate.” This last statement endears her to elitists, extremists, ultra-conservatives, neo-conservatives, and those such as Alan Greenspan.

Mr. Greenspan’s involvement with Ayn Rand was not superficial; nor was it from afar. In 1950, after completing his Master of Arts degree, Alan Greenspan joined the Ayn Rand Institute. For more than twenty years, Mr. Greenspan penned the Rand newsletter. Greenspan also authored a chapter in one of Ms. Rand’s books! In other words, Greenspan wrote and spoke prolifically for “Social Darwinism”!

Saturday, May 21, 2005

THE SILENT PRESS © [PART THREE IN AN UNINTEDED SERIES]

It was a day, just like any and all others days are in this God forsaken place; yet, God was all around us. There were many Gods, many interpretations of God, yet none were bringing love or peace. There were noises, loud noises, all around me. At times, piercing sounds would slice through the air; they were loud enough to burst an eardrum. There was never a truly quiet moment, noise was a constant companion. It was also an enemy, my enemy.

The constant barrage of blasting bullets and bombs caused many a sleepless night. There were children crying, parents screaming, and there were soldiers. They too made sounds, none of them good or comforting.

Then in a wink of an eye, it happened; I felt hot and sleepy. I had been standing, keeping watch. A muffled hum wised past my ear. I wondered, ‘what was that?’ I saw nothing. I felt a sensation; it was warm and wet. I looked down and then, I knew. Cold steel had entered my soft and supple flesh. It pierced through tissue, bone, and organs. Blood was flowing everywhere. I felt faint. I was hit!

There was shrapnel all about, on my clothes, on the ground, and in my body. Glass cut my throat, my hands, and my chest; the penetrations were deep. I could no longer look; I could no longer breathe. I fell into a deep, deep, sleep.

No photographs were taken or none were published. The press, and the President feared repercussions from my parents, friends, family, and from fellow citizens. They all wanted to be proud of their son [or daughter], their soldiers. Each wanted to remember me as I was. They wished for no words or photographs of war, at least not those of the “good guys” wounded or killed. They were only willing to see, hear, or read of death, when it was that of their enemies.

Saturday, May 21, 2005, the Los Angeles Times published a thoughtful piece titled, UNSEEN PICTURES, UNTOLD STORIES, by James Rainey. The subheading, “U.S. newspapers and magazines print few photos of American dead and wounded, a Times review finds. The reasons are many -- access, logistics, ethics -- but the result is an obscured view of the cost of war.”

Much of what I wrote in two earlier essays, SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, TENTATIVELY ©, and STILL TENTATIVE SUPPORT; PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE FALLEN © is addressed in this article. I found it a brilliant piece and thought that I would share it here with you.

While it may be true that, “a picture is worth a thousand words” I hope that my introduction will evoke some of what those unseen photographs might. My hope is that we will all consider the cost of war, not only in dollars, but also the cost of lost lives, limbs, and loved ones.

Here I offer an opportunity to view photographs and hear a report from the Los Angeles Times.

Please visit Operation Truth and view photographs taken by our troops in Iraq.

Kos is also speaking of the Unseen and Untold, Censoring torture stories doesn't help the troops as is Plutonium Page See No Evil.

Friday, May 20, 2005

SOCIAL SECURITY, WHEN “NEVER” IS DEFINED AS "2042" ©

When did definitions first become malleable? At what point did people begin to adjust these for context? Each time I hear President George W. Bush say that he needs to “educate” America, to tell us the “truth” about Social Security, I wonder. Mr. Bush claims that he wants to “teach“ the nation. However, the evidence shows that he intends to “persuade” us. Since Bush 43 took office, definitions have been destroyed in deference to political or personal agendas. “Promotion” passes for “instruction,” and the General Accounting Office repeatedly reprimands this administration for such.

I trust that distortion existed long before the year 2000, or even 1945, when George Orwell first published his political spoofs. I know that George W. Bush did not invent propaganda; nor did George Orwell. However, when I listen to this President, I cannot help but think of the relationship between the two. One wrote of the power of persuasion in political forums and the other is out and about, acting on it.

As we see, hear, and read, King George II is asserting his power. He is speaking to the people, repeating his rhetoric, determined to prove that if he says it often enough the people will believe. He says the Social Security program is in “crisis,” there is a “problem.” The system is flawed and it will go “bust.” Yet, I read economists assertions, reports stating that Social security will never go broke. Experts say, as long as payroll taxes are paid into the system, the program is secure.

When I hear the administration claim what authorities say is false and unfounded, I think of Animal Farm. The idea of “Newspeak” beckons. I remember ‘the ruling elites can and do easily use language to persuade those of lesser means; they present incorrect or illogical thoughts as though they were fact.’

I recall 1984 when President Bush praises a program of privation and individual accounts, then, affirms that this plan will do nothing to address the dilemma of solvency. I remember the theory of “doublethink.” I witness that, indeed, people can hold two contradictory beliefs simultaneously, and accept both of them as truth.

George W. Bush speaks and the concepts of George Orwell echo in my mind. I trust that Orwell’s writing did not bring these practices into our lives. Nonetheless, as our President chatters, I feel as though I am trapped in an Orwellian novel.

Please continue reading "SOCIAL SECURITY, WHEN “NEVER” IS DEFINED AS "2042" ©"

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

THE GREAT SOCIETY ©

"What we have before us are some breathtaking opportunities disguised as insoluble problems." John Gardner [Architect of the "Great Society"]

In 1965, President Lyndon Banes Johnson spoke of the Great Society. He proposed a world of abundance and liberty for all. He spoke of an end to poverty. President Johnson envisioned the Great Society as “a place where the city of man serves not only the needs of the body and the demands of commerce but the desire for beauty and the hunger for community. It is a place where man can renew contact with nature. It is a place where men are more concerned with the quality of their goals than the quantity of their goods.”

However, instead of building a Great Society, we built a Garage Society. We enter them, we exit them, we fill them, and they fulfill us, they are a “must-have.” For, if we own a garage, we own a home, and that is the American Dream. In this culture of garages, people no longer sit out on their porches; they no longer know, let alone see their neighbors. Neighbors are not heard; there is no sense of community. We are transient, transfixed by technology, and have little time or concern for the plight of others. However, there are those without garages. They live in low cost condominiums, apartments, hotels, or on the streets.

Today few can afford a house or a town-home; even apartment living is expensive. Prices continue to rise. The lack of affordable housing affects many. 30 million Americans experience housing burdens; cost is the greatest among these. More than 13 million households devote more than half of their income to housing expenses.

Many, about 6.1 million live in homes where the number of people cohabitating is greater than the number of rooms.

For every seven poor families, one lives in a home that is has no electricity or hot water. Many families do not have bathing facilities or toilets. In a country of opulence, these people go unnoticed.

We do not see the poor, the struggling, or even those under financial pressure as we leave our garages. We travel the freeways, and we overlook what we do not wish to ponder. With thanks to these constructions we need not be reminded of what is for others. There is no reason to consider what, in a time of crisis, could become of us. We put it out of sight, and out of mind. We are not a great society; we are a civilization of lost dreams.

On May 25, 2005, MaxSpeak spoke of Fannie, Freddie, and of course Alan Greenspan. Each of these helps to explain why our Greater Society is one of Garages and people living with less. Please read and reflect upon, WHY ALAN GREENSPAN IS UNFIT FOR PUBLIC OFFICE.

Monday, May 16, 2005

THE POWER OF WORDS, WHEN BUSH CALLS WAR “PEACE” ©

I was listening to a commentary titled, “Language Makes Difference to Cancer Patients.” Do Not Resuscitate, a “DNR order,” was the topic. As the speaker, Debra Jarvis, a chaplain for the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance spoke, I was reminded of my own concern. No, I was not worried that I might pass, at least not now or anytime soon. I was not thinking of the tentative nature of my own life or even that of others. I was not thinking of the tentative nature of my own life or even that of others. I was contemplating the power of words, first those of this clergywoman and then the words of our President.

Thursday, May 12, 2005

PUBLICLY RICE SUPPORTS BOLTON. YET, PRIVATELY? ©

President Bush nominated John R. Bolton for the office of United Nations Ambassador. There is much public support for Mr. Bolton; however, there are those on both sides of the aisle that do not believe that he would serve this nation well. Privately, there are questions and concerns. However, the President stands strong; he wants the former Under Secretary of State to represent our country. The President is very vocal in his support of Bolton. He is certain that he made the “right” choice and “Right” it is. Though many express qualms; the president continues to persevere.

There are those that speak softly of their reservations; among them is Republican, Senator George V. Voinovich of Ohio. After hearing testimony from people that voluntarily came forward to testify against this nominee, twenty of them staunch republicans, Voinovich publicly voiced his concerns. The hearings were postponed; the vote to approve was delayed. Karl Rove, the “architect” and the president's most powerful political adviser stepped in; he called Mr. Voinovich to stress the need for unity. Chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., chimed in as well. Each reminded the Senator that publicly support must appear solid.

Condoleezza Rice sings the party line; she also supports the appointment of this nominee with resolve. She has reason. The reason, she does not want Mr. Bolton to serve as deputy Secretary of State! Miss Rice acknowledges that John would prefer a position in the State Department; however, she is certain that she does not want to work with Mr. Bolton directly. She knows that Bolton helped the President to get into office in 2000 and that the Administration feels a need to return the favor. Condie understands the Administration’s belief; John “deserves something.” Nonetheless, she cannot bring herself to work closely with this man. Therefore, she offers her outspoken support to the nominee.

When the President first nominated Bolton to serve as United Nations Ambassador, Republicans and Democrats alike wondered whether Rice influenced the choice. It is well known that that Rice wanted Bolton in a position where his contribution to policy would be limited. She felt certain that Bolton needed to be controlled; he needed to be given instructions and be forced to follow these. She also believed that Bolton was a loose cannon. Is it possible that Secretary of State Rice persuaded the President to appoint John R. Bolton to the United Nations to avoid having him in the State Department?

It is; after all, she could easily make the case. “Bolton’s critical stance toward the United Nations dovetailed perfectly with the administration's own thinking.” If she pressed her points well, she would be free; Condie would not be burdened with a closer confluence. Hence, Miss Rice publicly announced her support for the appointment. She made calls to members of congress, Democrats and Republicans. She asked them to endorse the nominee. She requested confirmation and reassured them. She emphasized that Bolton would be “strictly scripted by Washington.”

Continue reading "PUBLICLY RICE SUPPORTS BOLTON. YET, PRIVATELY? ©"

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

ECONOMIC EXPERTS LOSE MONEY ©

When discussing private, individual retirement accounts, President Bush, and his buds tell us that we merely need to invest wisely. They say that this option will afford us the opportunity. Bush is often heard to say, “It is just that simple!” He tells us . . .

“I think people like the idea of being able to take some of their own money -- in other words, government says, you can decide, as opposed to, we'll decide for you, you get to decide if this is in your interest. And you get to decide whether you want to set some of your money aside in an account that will earn a better rate of return than that which will be earned in the Social Security system. That's an important part of making sure the system works for the individual.

I repeat; personal accounts do not permanently fix the solution. They make the solution more attractive for the individual worker. And that's important for people for understand.”

However, The Los Angeles Times tells another tale. In an article titled, “Experts Are at a Loss on Investing,” Nobel Prize winners in economics and academicians look at their own financial history. They speak from experience, personal experience. Each admits that they did not invest their money wisely. They had the choice, the cash, and the knowledge and yet . . .

Mr. Bush assures us that we will be safe, we will be secure, we will be wise, and we will do well; better than we would under Social Security. However, when we consider the personal experiences of economic experts we find reason to doubt.

The father of "modern portfolio theory," Harry M. Markowitz is a Nobel Prize winner in economics. He is best known for his theories on diversity. However, admittedly, he ignored his own advice; he did not diversify his investments. His own portfolio was limited. He placed fifty percent of his cash in stocks and the other fifty percent in a conservative, low-interest investment. Markowitz, now 77-years-old said, "In retrospect, it would have been better to have been more in stocks when I was younger."

Daniel Kahneman of Princeton University is another Nobel Prize winner; he won this award in 2002. Kahneman mused of his monies, “"I think very little about my retirement savings, because I know that thinking could make me poorer or more miserable or both."

Then there is 2001 Nobel Prize winner Joseph E. Stiglitz. He is a professor at Columbia, and a former Clinton administration economist. In reflecting of his own financial history he quips, "Retirement is not like buying a cup of coffee. It's not something you get to do over and over again and learn from your mistakes."

Mr. Bush if the economists, the experts, stumble, stall, and do not save well, then what of us, the rest of us?

UNITED [UAL] WE STAND! WITH PRIVATE PENSIONS, WE PERISH! ©

The day breaks, and so too does the news; United Airlines is close to bankruptcy. In an attempt to survive, this private company turns to a federal government agency for assistance. United is asking Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation,/a> to fund its retirement program. This once strong corporation is failing; their future looks grim. This seems to be the start of a trend for big businesses today. Others recently announced their struggles. Corporations that led the country are grappling for business. What we once relied upon, trusted to be true, is no longer. Investing in private industry is not the certain path that many profess it to be. The tide is turning and who among us can accurately predict the future?


History can only guide us. Let us look at the history of United Airlines. Possibly there are lessons to learn.


Years ago, in 1993, United Airlines board of directors approved an innovative proposal. The plan would merge the missions of management, pilots, machinists, and flight attendants. These corporate giants offered their [then] 54,000 employees partial ownership in the company. The thinking was that this would assuage the financial struggles that the business was facing. Many believed that employee-ownership would be an incentive for United Airlines workers. Service would improve; morale would be better. Workers would be happy and pleased to pleasure their customers. Clientele would return again and again. All would result in greater profits, more monies for shareholders and employees alike. United Airlines would be united in its vision.


Aesop, the most famous fabulist of all times stated the concept of a united force in his fables. In the 6th century he offered, “Union gives strength.” President Lincoln repeated this idea in the 1860’s; he posed “United we stand.” The strength of working together for the greater-good, is the premise of our Social Security program, a plan initiated during the Franklin Delanor Roosevelt presidency. Currently there are some 45 million persons receiving Social Security benefits. Before Social Security, people such as these, under similar circumstances, lived in poverty. Yes, unity was the answer.


As of July 12, 1994, portions of employee salaries and benefits would be paid in United Airlines stock. This groundbreaking action helped to create the largest majority employee-owned company in the world. Workers and management were united. United, they stood solid. Life looked good. However, it was not. Why not? What happened? Why was United not truly a united force?

Continue reading "UNITED [UAL] WE STAND! WITH PRIVATE PENSIONS, WE PERISH! ©"

Monday, May 09, 2005

CRISIS IN THE COURTS! ©

President Bush blames the Democrats for blocking his judicial appointments. He claims “courtrooms sit empty.” He states the cause is clear; Democrats in the Senate refuse an up-or-down vote on his nominees. Mr. Bush maintains this is causing a crisis in our courts. While there is much evidence to the contrary, it is true; there is calamity, though not in the courts per se.

Bush and his Billionaires Boys and Girls Club state that the problem is the Senate, or at least the Democrats within the Senate. Congressional Conservatives, Chief Executives Officers, Corporate bigwigs, loaded Libertarians, and those that want–to-be believe that the President’s appointees deserve approval regardless of their positions and papers.

There are those that believe the catastrophe is President Bush wants to stack the courts. It seems that George W. is asking the Senate to rubber stamp any, and all nominees.

Some think the problem is the potential filibuster,or maybe it is the nuclear option.

While I could offer a delightful analysis, I might state that in less than two years, judicial vacancies were reduced from 12.8 percent to 5.7 percent, the lowest they have been in the last two decades, I will let that stand as is. I may well talk of the 165 George W. Bush appointees that have been confirmed, or I could speak to, what for me, is the real issue; of the 46 federal judgeships that remain vacant, President Bush has only named 16 replacements! Thus, I ask, who is the obstructionist; who is the cause of our current crisis?

Sunday, May 08, 2005

COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVES WANT THEM DEAD ©

On September 17, 2003, President George W. Bush stated publicly that he wanted “justice” for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center. He decisively declared that he wanted Bin Laden just as the old western posters proclaimed. The President wanted him “dead or alive.” In truth, our compassionately conservative president wanted no part of compassion; nor did he desire being conservative in his pursuit of justice. George Bush wanted Bin Laden dead; he wanted his head on a platter, literally. At least he wanted his head on a bed of dry ice!

On Wednesday May 4, 2005, the BBC reported this story. They shared the words of former Central Intelligence chief, Gary Schroen. Mr. Schroen was among the first flown into Afghanistan a week after 9/11. Schroen was the lead; he was given the privilege of choosing his own six-person team. He and his men were given orders to “kill” Osama Bin Laden and to “bring back his head.”

Mr. Schroen, station chief in both Kabul and Islamabad was thought to be ideal for the mission. He was familiar with the land and the culture; he had connections. Therefore, it was believed that Gary Schroen could easily liaise with anti-Taliban warlords. The plan was that Schroen and his men would overthrow the regime and then assassinate Bin Laden and other Al-Queda operatives. The group was well equipped to do their job. They were given laptops, hand-held radios, instant coffee, and $3 million in $100 bills. What more does a compassionate conservative mission need? Millions in monies, manpower, a missive from the President, and ammunition is all that is required.

Now Mr. Gary Schroen has released his memoirs, titled First In, and much is revealed. We now know that “dead” was the dictum; “alive” was merely an allusive concept. “Justice” was the spoken intent; however, “just us,” was the President’s purpose. He believed that only the Whitehouse had [or has] the right and the power to judge.

National Public Broadcasting, May 2, 2005, airs an accounting. Dead or Alive, Hunting Osama Bin Laden. Please listen.
Please listen to and view an interview: Gary Schroen speaks with Tim Russert, aired Sunday, May 8, 2005, on Meet the Press.