Undecided Voter Blog

I've decided to blog a bit for the undecided voter. You can find the original article here. McCloskey is a real Republican, having represented the party in Congress for 16 years. Moderates and even conservatives should stop and listen to him.

Fri, Sep. 10, 2004
San Jose Mercury News

If you're a true Republican, you'll vote for Kerry

By Pete McCloskey

Although I'm a lifelong Republican, I will vote for John Kerry on Nov. 2. The choice seems simple under traditional principles of the Republican Party.

I first met John Kerry in the spring of 1971. Each of us was just back from Vietnam -- he as a Navy officer and I as a member of Congress -- and were appalled by what we had seen there. I found Kerry to be idealistic, courageous and, above all else, truthful to a fault. He demonstrated courage in Vietnam, but as Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once said, the courage to speak against prevailing opinion in civil strife is often greater than that demanded on the battlefield.

During Kerry's public career after his election to the Senate, he has clearly grown and matured. I believe he is incapable of deliberate deceit or dissembling. This alone represents a refreshing hope for a return of public faith in our government.

That Kerry has attained the solid support of former Secretary of Defense William Perry, with whom he has worked for years on issues of nuclear proliferation, confirms his ability to study, listen and reach sound judgments.

The primary issue in November will be who can best lead us in the bitter struggle against the Islamic fundamentalists who perpetrated 9/11 and are willing to die to kill Americans throughout the world. The Iraq occupation has caused thousands of new suicide bombers to join the jihad against us; with Kerry as president, the nation will properly refocus the battle away from Iraq and against the true enemy, Al-Qaida.

As Kerry has stated, we desperately need the cooperation of every country in the world, friend and enemy, where terrorist cells can germinate and operate.

We need to be more humble in asking for this assistance. A return to the ``speak softly but carry a big stick'' philosophy of Teddy Roosevelt should be far more effective than the bluster, bravado and ``shock and awe'' firepower of the neocon advisers who have commandeered White House foreign policy.

There are many other reasons to support John Kerry.

The incredible budget deficits projected to be $2.3 trillion or more in the next decade, disrespect for the United Nations, international law and Geneva Conventions, secrecy in government -- all of these are positions Kerry would certainly reverse.

As a Catholic, Kerry is sure to maintain the constitutional separation between church and state, recognizing that while we are indeed a nation under God, everyone is free to choose his or her own faith in God.

He will also end the inordinate secrecy that has characterized this administration. It seems incredible that a matter as important as our national energy policy could be decided in secret by Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force -- individuals whose very names have been withheld from the public.

Kerry's record on environmental issues is superb, an area where the Bush administration has been a disaster.

Finally, there's the matter of John Ashcroft and prospective judicial appointees who could undo Roe vs. Wade, a woman's right of choice and many of the civil liberties we have earned over 225 years.

Each of the foregoing reasons for supporting Kerry is based on traditional Republican values of fiscal responsibility, limited governmental intrusion and the accountability of individuals.

In truth, John Kerry and John Edwards come far closer to the Republicanism of Teddy Roosevelt, Earl Warren, Barry Goldwater, George Bush the elder and, yes, even Richard Nixon, than does the present incumbent.

Ending secrecy and bringing truth and honesty back to the White House are reasons enough to elect Kerry and Edwards.

PETE MCCLOSKEY represented the San Francisco Peninsula in Congress from 1967 to 1983. He earned a Navy Cross, Silver Star and two Purple Hearts as a Marine rifle platoon leader during the Korean War. He wrote this column for the Mercury News.

John Kerry-George W. Bush Debate, Round 1

Left out are the great zingers, like Kerry's remark that Bush outsourced the hunting of Osama bin Laden to Afghan warlords! But this thread of back-and-forth is substantial, and worth reading. You can see that Kerry is responding to Bush, and to the facts on the ground, and our current standing in the world. Bush is simply repeating what he always says. Yes Saddam is a threat, but no you didn't really try to bring in the UN (before or immediately after), no you didn't have a plan to win the peace, and no you didn't find any weapons of mass destruction - points left out of the excerpts! In sum, Bush's words would fit if the situation in Iraq were 180 degrees different from the disaster it is now. And then it hits you, maybe his view is 180 degrees from reality...

Debate Excerpts
By The Associated Press
Excerpts from Thursday's presidential debate at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Fla.:

___
PRESIDENT BUSH:
"I believe I'm going to win, because the American people know I know how to lead. I've shown the American people I know how to lead. I have -- I understand everybody in this country doesn't agree with the decisions I've made. And I made some tough decisions. But people know where I stand."
SEN. JOHN KERRY (news, bio, voting record):
"I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. But we also have to be smart. And smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan (news - web sites) against Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) and taking if off to Iraq (news - web sites)."
BUSH:
"My opponent looked at the same intelligence I looked at and declared in 2002 that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was a grave threat. He also said in December of 2003 that anyone who doubts that the world is safer without Saddam Hussein does not have the judgment to be president. I agree with him. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein."
KERRY:
"This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment. And judgment is what we look for in the president of the United States of America."
BUSH:
"First of all, what my opponent wants you to forget is that he voted to authorize the use of force and now says it's the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place. I don't see how you can lead this country to succeed in Iraq if you say wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. What message does that send our troops? What message does that send to our allies? What message does that send the Iraqis?
"No, the way to win this is to be steadfast and resolved and to follow through on the plan that I've just outlined."
KERRY:
"Yes, we have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there. We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake of judgment to go there and take the focus off of Osama bin Laden. It was. Now, we can succeed. But I don't believe this president can."
BUSH:
"My opponent says help is on the way, but what kind of message does it say to our troops in harm's way, wrong war, wrong place, wrong time? Not a message a commander in chief gives, or this is a great diversion. As well, help is on the way, but it's certainly hard to tell it when he voted against the $87 billion supplemental to provide equipment for our troops, and then said he actually did vote for it before he voted against it."

KERRY:
"Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse? I believe that when you know something's going wrong, you make it right. That's what I learned in Vietnam."
BUSH:
"I understand how hard it is to commit troops. Never wanted to commit troops. When I was running -- when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I'd be doing that. But the enemy attacked us ... and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us."
"But a president must always be willing to use troops. It must - as a last resort."
KERRY:
"The president just said something extraordinarily revealing and frankly very important in this debate. In answer to your question about Iraq and sending people into Iraq, he just said, 'The enemy attacked us.' Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al-Qaida attacked us."
BUSH:
"First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that. And secondly, to think that another round of resolutions would have caused Saddam Hussein to disarm, disclose, is ludicrous, in my judgment. It just shows a significant difference of opinion."
BUSH:
"I fully agree that one should shift tactics, and we will, in Iraq. Our commanders have got all the flexibility to do what is necessary to succeed. But what I won't do is change my core values because of politics or because of pressure. And it is one of the things I've learned in the White House, is that there's enormous pressure on the president, and he cannot wilt under that pressure. Otherwise, the world won't be better off."
KERRY:
"I have no intention of wilting. I've never wilted in my life. And I've never wavered in my life. I know exactly what we need to do in Iraq, and my position has been consistent: Saddam Hussein is a threat. He needed to be disarmed. We needed to go to the (United Nations (news - web sites)). ... But we didn't need to rush to war without a plan to win the peace."
BUSH:
"I've got a good relation with (Russian President ) Vladimir (Putin). And it's important that we do have a good relation, because that enables me to better comment to him, and to better to discuss with him, some of the decisions he makes.
KERRY:
"I regret what's happened in these past months. And I think it goes beyond just the response to terror. Mr. Putin now controls all the television stations. His political opposition is being put in jail. And I think it's very important to the United States, obviously, to have a working relationship that is good. This is a very important country to us. We want a partnership. But we always have to stand up for democracy."
KERRY:
"Let me look you in the eye and say to you: I defended this country as a young man at war, and I will defend it as president of the United States. But I have a difference with this president. I believe we're strongest when we reach out and lead the world and build strong alliances. I have a plan for Iraq. I believe we can be successful. I'm not talking about leaving. I'm talking about winning. And we need a fresh start, a new credibility, a president who can bring allies to our side."
BUSH:
"If America shows uncertainty or weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. That's not going to happen, so long as I'm your president. The next four years we will continue to strengthen our homeland defenses. We will strengthen our intelligence-gathering services. We will reform our military. The military will be an all-volunteer army. We will continue to stay on the offense. We will fight the terrorists around the world so we do not have to face them here at home."

Weekend worrier

If anyone's noticing... I returned to the older format for this blog. It was called "The Daily Orange" for about two weeks, hence the brightly coloredmargins. I switched back for two reasons: one, I found that the Syracuse campus newspaper already goes by that name; and two, I don't particularlycare to spend more than the occasional moment decrying the conservative biasin the Orange County Register or the civic close-mindedness of local yokels, many of them as ignorant as they are wealthy. It's a waste of my time. Or rather, it's MORE a waste of my time than other wastes of my time. Toparaphrase Green Day, I don't want to be an American Idiot, but I also don'twant to be preoccupied with their redneck agenda. Or orangeneck agenda,as I think of certain Sunbelt suburbanites.

This weekend was the first I really enjoyed in a while. It didn't start smoothly - my dad and I wentto see "The Bourne Supremacy" on Friday at the bargain theater in Woodbridge. And what a bargain - something was wrong with the sound during the trailers,got better during the movie, which went completely silent after 40 minutes - loose crystals, caused by bumping into the projector, the kids at the frontcounter said. We'd get a free pass if we stayed through the movie, which I figured was just as good as getting our money back - even better, as itwas a matinee, but as I mentioned the sound went completely out, so we tookour money and left. Which was too bad, as the action was just heating up,and I was left slightly dizzy by the cuts and handheld realism. I don't mind that technique, but I minded missing the "payoff" of seeing the plot unfold. And these days, the Bourne character is one of the few mainstream creations who is not working FOR the CIA! All over the TV, you see the CIA or some cousin agency as the good guys, ala Alias or ThreatMatrix or what have you. Folks outside the US must wonder how we can do this after the revelations about the coup against Allende in Chile, Arbenz in Guatemala, and Mossadegh in Iran, plus the funding of the same Afghan groups supported by Osama bin Laden.

Ironically, the CIA's misjudgments in Afghanistan that has ultimately led to the disaster that has elevated its reputation - or maybe not its reputation, but its relative standing - among the American public. In "The Bourne Supremacy", the CIA is seen fairly close to how it really is - another self-interested bureaucracy dedicated to preserving its own standing, and its members interested in covering their hides. Yes, there's the public service/national security bit, but the Agency's overreaching as even more bad consquences than their underreaching - hence the creation of robot assassin types like Jason Bourne. It's not inherently evil. But its aims, or perhaps the aims of this country, put in, and sometimes on, the path of evil. Well, this weekend I put those thoughts largely out of my mind.

I'll probably not return to that theater - Captain Blood's, an odd name for the Irvine "family theater" - you know the kind that shows "family" fare like "The Passion of the Christ" and the above film. But I'll remember it fondly. As a kid, I went to the movies very infrequently. But most movies I saw in the 1980s were at this theater, like "Revenge of the Nerds II" and "Troop Beverly Hills". Ah, the classics! Back then it belonged to the Edwards Cinema chain, before it went bankrupt under the huge expansion spending spree of James Edwards. A pleasant byproduct of this spree is the fact that Irvine has seven movie theaters, with roughly 60 screens. Even nicer, the University 6 (near UCI) plays limited release films, some might call them "indie" films, while others call them "art" films (aren't movies supposed to be?) - and occasionally, so does the one at Irvine Spectrum 21.

After the botched film excursion, my dad and I went to Barnes and Noble. I glanced at the various current non-fiction titles, including the increasingly numerous political books that expressly or by implication favor of disfavor Bush or Kerry. The difference, if anyone takes care to notice, and not many do, is that the "pro-Kerry" or "anti-Bush" books are often written by conservatives or moderates such as Eisenhower Center head David Brinkley (Tour of Duty), Reagan adviser Kevin Phillips (American Dynasty), and Bush I's Ambassador to Kuwait Patrick Wilson (The Politics of Truth). Not to mention Rand Beers and David Brock. "Anti-Kerry" or "pro-Bush" book authors tend not to have any independent standing outside of the right-wing media, such as talk-show brother David Limbaugh, and WSJ OpinionJournal editor Tony Taranto. In other words, the blowhard candidate are being supported by blowhards. So what's new.

After glancing at the new titles, I finally found what I was looking for: In the Shadow of No Towers by Art Spiegelman. Who better than this New Yorker and author of Maus to depict the tragedy and tumult of September 11th and its crazy aftermath? I found a couple good reviews at the San Francisco Chronicle and New York Times. My own observations: for a oversized (11" by 17") book, it's very hard to find. That's because the hard cover is black, like the New Yorker cover following the terrorist attacks. Inside though is an almost zany world of colors, starting with the inside cover page, which was the September 11, 1901 edition of Joseph Pulitzer's New York World. Front page headlines? The assassination of President McKinley, by a man with anarchist beliefs who was thought wrongly to be a foreigner. Sideline? The arrest and questioning of Emma Goldman, the famous immigrant labor activist, feminist, and revolutionary, about the assassination which of course, she had nothing to do with at all. The more things change...

racial profiling is un-American

Funny, I thought the 'war on terror' was an attempt to protect our democratic and free society, not to eviscerate it.


Amnesty condemns US use of racial profiling

Mon Sep 13, 7:16 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Racial profiling by US law enforcement agencies has grown over the past three years to cover one in nine Americans, rights group Amnesty International said in a report.

"State and federal agencies, under the guise of fighting terrorism, have expanded the use of this degrading, discriminatory and dangerous practice," said Curt Goering, deputy executive director for Amnesty International USA.

According to its study, some 32 million Americans have been subjected to profiling, defined as the targeting of people because of their ethnic or religious background.

And some 87 million Americans are at risk of racial profiling during their lifetime.

Amnesty said use of profiling has seen a major increase since the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington.

The practice "violates human rights, undermines national security and simply does not work," said Goering.

Timothy Lewis, a former district court judge and federal prosecutor, said that racial profiling is not only ineffective, it violates the US Constitution. "It is wrong, and nothing that happened on September 11, 2001 makes it right," he said.

The Amnesty report pointed to "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh, British shoe-bomber Richard Reid and Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh -- who escaped as police searched for Arab suspects -- as examples of people who did not fit the standard terrorist profiles.

President George W. Bush vowed to end racial profiling in US law enforcement in February 2001, but the ban is a policy -- not law -- and has no enforcement teeth, according to the report.

Bush "has failed to support any federal legislative effort" to eliminate racial profiling in the country, Amnesty said.

Cathy Harris, a senior US Customs inspector, complained in 1998 about racial profiling practices that included strip searches of black and Hispanic women. Following the complaints Harris said that Customs changed their practices and the group saw drug arrests increase by 300 percent.

But following the September 11 attacks and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, Customs merged with the Immigration and Naturalization Service and 20 other federal agencies -- and Customs "is slowly going back to its old ways," Harris said.

"The targeting of certain groups -- specifically Arab and Muslim Americans and travelers who are citizens of Arab and Muslim nations -- has increased," she said.

According to Amnesty, people of Middle Eastern or South Asian descent and those of the Muslim and Sikh faiths are most at risk, especially since the September 11 attacks.

Amnesty wants the US Congress as well as state and local governments to enact comprehensive legislation banning the practice.

Amnesty's 50-page report documents cases of people pulled over by police and treated as suspects solely based on their looks, as well as people of Middle Eastern and south Asian descent who do not call police or the fire department because they fear they will be targeted based on their race.

--

"A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws." - Justice Anthony Kennedy

at home in the world

A few days ago, I read a random blog authored by a medical student or resident doctor in Saudi Arabia. I was reading about him and his friends, who all had odd non-Arabic names and then I scrolled to see photos of a bunch of Asian men about my age. Like so many productive denizens of Saudi Arabia, they were Filipino.

I didn't plan this introduction, and in fact I have no idea where to find this blog of - let's call him Mr. F. But I learned a lot more about the importance of Mr. F and his friends, to his family, his country, and the intricate weave of the world economy, all of which are threatened by a war of choice.

In July, the Philippine government decided to withdraw from the "coalition of the willing" in occupied Iraq. I don't recall much coverage of this event in the U.S., though it reveals how willingly they participated. Anyway, here is how Radio Singapore analyzed the decision.

The Philippines has begun pulling its forces out of Iraq, after a militant group has threatened to execute a Filipino hostage.

The pullout was initiated after another group of kidnappers in Iraq said they beheaded one of two Bulgarian hostages.

Despite the pullout, Manila had no information on the situation of Filipino hostage, Angelo de la Cruz.

Asiri Abubakar (AA) is the Professor of Asian Studies at the University of Philippines, and he updates RSI's Melanie Yip on the contingent pullout.

AA: I think the final figure now, the remaining contingent in Iraq is about 43.

Now, on the issue of the hostage taking. Other countries like South Korea and Japan did not pull their troops out of Iraq despite public pressure. So why did the Philippines decide to withdraw their troops now and earlier than their scheduled pull out date in August?

AA: I think that on the part of our government, the Arroyo Administration is, for the first time, facing a tremendous internal pressure on this issue. You see, we have around 8 million Filipinos working abroad, and there is tremendous pressure from families of these millions of Filipinos who are working abroad. They leave the country in search for jobs abroad because our country is not in any position to give the people that many jobs. This is purely internal pressure, which is tremendous. The Arroyo Administration cannot set aside this pressure.

But do you think that by pulling out the troops, it will help President Gloria Arroyo's political standing in the country?

AA: Well, it is a terrible choice for the administration, it must be admitted. But the [Philippines Presidential] elections have just concluded, there are so many political and economic issues facing the administration, so these are some of the factors the administration had to consider the pressure coming from the families, and other sectors to take advantage of the ongoing hostage taking situation.

Now, how is the United States reacting to the Philippines' decision to withdraw its troops from Iraq?

AA: I think it is a great displeasure for the United States, particularly for the Bush Administration, when he is facing re-election this year. It is understandable for the Bush Administration to be displeased with the decision of our government. This is the first time that any Philippines Administration has openly defied its decision to support an American policy, particularly in the case of Iraq.

What message will this current situation of the Philippines withdrawing their troops from Iraq, how would this set a precedence for the coalition of the willing in future?

AA: Well, other countries have done it, like Spain. We are doing almost like Spain, although in their case, Spain has experienced such horrible happenings like the train bombings before their elections. The new Spanish government decided to withdraw their troops. I hope it doesn't set an example for other countries to follow. As far as the Philippines is concerned, it is unique to us. We have this tremendous number of Filipinos working abroad, most of them in the Middle East. So there is tremendous pressure on this administration.

Will the terrorist groups get the upper hand?

AA: I don't know whether we can influence, and how much our decisions matter. It may not also help that the terrorist threats the Philippines is facing on the domestic front. The Philippines went to Iraq on the basis of our commitment to help the international community laid by the US to fight terror. But there is also a problem with respect to the war in Iraq. Even the US officials and some members of the coalition of the willing, including the UK are saying that there was not much justification for going to war. So that's also one problem.. The war was not internationally recognized, and even some Filipinos feel that the war is immoral.

Some people have said that a truly international coalition desired by the realists ala the Gulf War would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. But the fact that the U.S. didn't even try but instead created a multilateral facade to hide its singular arrogant face, means that even the facade will be very difficult, if not impossible, to duplicate.

I didn't realize how globalized our society has become, for everyone. Not just the very rich or very poor nations, but especially for those in between like the Philippines, whose human talent is not matched by its economic might. So its doctors, nurses, engineers, and maids are flung across the world, applying their skills where the financial rate of return is greater.

But all the flinging and border crossing depends on stability, and the more far-flung your pool of talent becomes, the greater becomes your desire for international political stability. By diving into Iraq under American pressure, President Arroyo put her nation's welfare at risk. And domestic terrorism or insurgency doesn't even play into the decision, because that occurs anyway. The concern are the 8 million living abroad and sustaining home who are potential hostages.

And the retractions regarding "weapons of mass destruction" by US and UK leaders really unhinge the screws from the facade. Americans may be alright with the war of choice and regime change, but the rest of the world really sold this on terrorism. But we sold our satellites' leaders a bill of goods, and forced them to sell it to their people. Either sale will be much harder when we need to make the hard sell - say, in fighting real terrorism or preventing a nuclear threat. Or how about averting genocide? International law aside, those political consequences are arguably worse than leaving a brutal dictator in power.

As the town elder told the shepherd boy who cried wolf, "You must tell the truth, not just now and then, but all the time."

A deficit in objective reporting

I opened up our local paper today to find on the front page, right-hand column, the following headline:

"CBO sees federal deficit shrinking from predicted size"

Underneath the title is the lead, in small font:

Deficit - The Congressional Budget Office projected that this election year's federal deficit would be a record $422 billion, a shortfall that would be smaller than analysts predicted earlier this year. The projection became instant fodder for both political parties. News 13

So I turned to page 13, where I saw the headline in even bigger type:

"Congressional analysts lower deficit forecast"

And then below it, the subheader: "However, the latest federal projection - a $422 billion shortfall - is still the biggest dollar amount in history."

It seems obvious to me that the most significant and newsworthy fact is that this deficit is $422 billion dollars, and that is a record deficit. After that, one can add that however, the new projections are lower than before. Certainly Alan Fram thought so. Fram is the Associated Press writer of this article. The headlines, however, were produced courtesy of The Orange County Register, probably the most conservative daily paper of its size in California, and certainly one of the most conservative in the nation. A reader can see that slant in the editorial pages, and come to expect that bias.

What once surprised and now just offends me, is the way the bias bleeds into the news and even the copy (headlines, graphs, placement of stories). It's fine to reflect one's opinion in the opinion section, but it seems unethical for a publisher to massage the facts like with the record deficit story, particularly in an election year. Of course, being who they are, that's even more reason for the Register folks to soft-pedal bad news for the Republicans.

Am I reading too much into the headlines? If I didn't, I would not have caught their sleight of hand. But let's test my hypothesis. Other dailies surely picked up this AP wire story. What do their headlines look like? I turned to Yahoo! News and searched for the article using deficit and Fram. You can even repeat my experiment. I posted the results below.

The top 20 hits come from 14 unique sources. Of those 14 unique sources, NINE mention $422 billion, TEN mention record deficit, and just TWO mention the lowered prediction. One of those two, from the Philadelphia Inquirer, said "Record deficit but less than forecast". The other mention comes from fredericksburg.com, a site that registered seven separate hits because it takes all AP feeds and does not produce any copy of its own.

No other news site crafted headlines like the OC Register, even though the article itself was virtually the same across the board. And to say that the CBO sees the deficit "shrinking" from its predicted size falsely implies that the deficit situation is materially improving. I mean, the CBO announcement is a prediction too. In fact, no "real" shrinking of the deficit has or will happen - especially not with the current administration. But that conclusion is exactly what the Register wants to obscure from plain view.

NEWS STORIES

Results 1 - 20 of about 183 for deficit fram.

Sort Results by: Relevance Date

1. Analysts predict record deficit ALAN FRAM; The Associated Press
   Tacoma News Tribune - Sep 08 1:25 AM
   WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Congressional Budget Office projected Tuesday that this election-year's federal deficit will hit a record $422 billion, a shortfall that would be smaller than analysts predicted earlier this year.


2. CBO Projects $442 Billion Federal Deficit By ALAN FRAM
   Fredericksburg.com - Sep 07 8:15 PM
   The federal deficit will swell to a record $422 billion this election year but fall short of even more dire forecasts, Congress' top budget analysts projected Tuesday in a report that became instant fodder for both political parties.


3. CBO Projects $442 Billion Federal Deficit By ALAN FRAM
   Fredericksburg.com - Sep 07 8:15 AM
   The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that this election-year's federal deficit will reach $422 billion, congressional aides said Tuesday, the highest ever, yet a smaller shortfall than analysts predicted earlier this year.


4. Analysts Expect Smaller Budget Deficit By ALAN FRAM
   Fredericksburg.com - Sep 07 5:16 AM
   Congress' top budget analysts still expect the 2004 federal deficit to set a record, though a smaller one than they and the White House anticipated earlier in this election year.


5. Federal Budget Deficit To Reach $422B This Year, Pressure on Medicare
   Medical News Today - Sep 08 4:14 PM
   The federal budget deficit will reach a "record" $422 billion, or 3.6% of gross domestic product, in fiscal year 2004 and is expected to rise to $2.3 trillion over the next 10 years, in part because of the rising cost of programs such as Medicare and Social Security, according to new figures released Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office, the Washington Post reports.


6. Federal deficit expected to be record $422 billion
   Miami Herald - Sep 08 12:22 AM
   Congressional analysts projected a record $422 billion deficit this year, a figure that falls short of earlier forecasts.


7. Federal deficit will increase to record $422 billion this year
   The Ohio University Post - Sep 08 6:45 AM
   WASHINGTON -The federal deficit will swell to a record $422 billion this election year but fall short of even more dire forecasts, Congress' top budget analysts projected yesterday in a report that became instant fodder for both political parties.


8. Record deficit projected
   Kansas City Star - Sep 08 12:48 AM
   WASHINGTON — The federal deficit will swell to a record $422 billion this election year but fall short of even more dire forecasts, Congress' top budget analysts projected Tuesday.


9. Deficit predicted to reach $422B
   Long Beach Press-Telegram - Sep 08 12:53 AM
   Parties seize record figure as political fodder. WASHINGTON — The federal deficit will swell to a record $422billion this election year but fall short of even more dire forecasts, Congress' top budget analysts projected Tuesday in a report that became instant fodder for both political parties.


10. Year's deficit to reach record $422 billion
    Denver Post - Sep 07 8:08 AM
    Washington - The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that this election-year's federal deficit will reach $422 billion, congressional aides said today, the highest ever, yet a smaller shortfall than analysts predicted earlier this year.


11. Deficit numbers still a record
    Albany Democrat-Herald - Sep 07 3:06 PM
    WASHINGTON - The Congressional Budget Office projected today that this election-year's federal deficit will hit a record $422 billion, a shortfall that would be smaller than analysts predicted earlier this year.


12. A record deficit but less than forecast
    The Philadelphia Inquirer - Sep 08 12:22 AM
    At $422 billion, the projection fell short of what had been expected. Each party had its own spin.


13. for
    SanLuisObispo.com - Sep 08 6:29 AM
    Parents, coaches and rec league officials are invited to submit their stars of the week. Please remember that kids can appear only once a month. And if your star doesn’t make it the first time, try, try again.


14. CBO Projects $442 Billion Federal Deficit By ALAN FRAM
    Fredericksburg.com - Sep 07 5:59 PM
    The federal deficit will swell to a record $422 billion this election year but fall short of even more dire forecasts, Congress' top budget analysts projected Tuesday in a report that became instant fodder for both political parties.


15. CBO Projects $442 Billion Federal Deficit By ALAN FRAM
    Fredericksburg.com - Sep 07 4:30 PM
    The federal deficit will swell to a record $422 billion this election year but fall short of even more dire forecasts, Congress' top budget analysts projected Tuesday in a report that became instant fodder for both political parties.


16. CBO Projects $442 Billion Federal Deficit By ALAN FRAM
    Fredericksburg.com - Sep 07 10:29 AM
    The Congressional Budget Office projected Tuesday that this election-year's federal deficit will hit a record $422 billion, a shortfall that would be smaller than analysts predicted earlier this year.


17. CBO Projects $442 Billion Federal Deficit By ALAN FRAM
    Fredericksburg.com - Sep 07 7:31 AM
    The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that this election-year's federal deficit will reach $422 billion, congressional aides said Tuesday, the highest ever, yet a smaller shortfall than analysts predicted earlier this year.


18. Analysts forecast record $422 billion deficit
    The Olympian - Sep 08 5:28 AM
    WASHINGTON -- The federal deficit will swell to a record $422 billion this election year but fall short of even more dire forecasts, Congress' top budget analysts projected Tuesday in a report that became instant fodder for both political parties.


19. Congressional analysts say deficit will be record
    Daily Bulletin - Sep 08 12:46 AM
    WASHINGTON - The Congressional Budget Office projected Tuesday that this election-year's federal deficit will hit a record $422 billion, a shortfall that would be smaller than analysts predicted earlier this year.


20. CBO Projects $442 Billion Federal Deficit
    Lebanon Daily Record - Sep 07 3:04 PM
    WASHINGTON - The Congressional Budget Office projected Tuesday that this election-year's federal deficit will hit a record $422 billion, a shortfall that would be smaller than analysts predicted earlier this year.

* Note: the San Luis Obispo headline, which does not show in the hyperlink, reads CBO Projects Record $442 Billion Federal Deficit. Check it out.

Charge of the Far-Right Brigade

Forward, the Far-Right Brigade!
Was there a man dismayed?
No, though the soldier knew
Someone had blundered
Theirs not to make reply
Theirs not to reason why
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the Valley of Death
Drove the ten hundred.

U.S. Death Toll in Iraq Reaches Grim Milestone

(Reuters) - The American death toll in Iraq topped 1,000 on Tuesday nearly 18 months after President Bush launched the war that has become a central issue in the November U.S. presidential elections. U.S. casualties in Iraq have surged in recent weeks, particularly among Marines, as Washington fights a guerrilla war that has no quick end in sight. Bush's Democratic rival John Kerry -- a decorated Vietnam War veteran -- called it "a tragic milestone." More

Today is the day I dreaded, and yet expected, would come. Expected, given the lack of international support for our invasion, the loss of civil order and resulting chaos in Iraq, our lack of a transition or exit strategy, and our abuse of the Iraqi people and destruction of their daily life. These reasons are known to all, and too well. But the thousand American deaths surprised a few. It certainly would have surprised the man who in May 2003 commandeered some real military pilot's jet and landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln, where he had ordered the unfurling of a banner that said "Mission Accomplished". I'm sure that George W. Bush hoped to shower us with photos of that day during the fall of 2004. Well, here we are.

Ironically, Bush said today that "We will be there until the mission is finished." If i were prosecutor cross-examining him, I might ask, "Were you lying then, or are you lying now?" Or, there's a third possibility. Perhaps under Bush's watch, we're simply moving backwards.

Only backwards thinking can explain their continued effort to confuse the "war on terror" and the invasion of Iraq, two events connected solely in the minds and plans of the neocons:

Bush administration officials sought to put the 1,000 deaths in Iraq in the context of the war against terrorism. "When combined with U.S. losses in other theaters in the global war on terror, we have lost well more than a thousand already," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a Pentagon briefing.

Rumsfeld's smug and cavalier (is there any other kind?) words are well past the "sell by" date for the fictional al-Qaeda connection. It only makes sense if we're going backwards in time. Personally, I don't blame the Bush administration for the events of September 11. Those attacks were probably unavoidable, given our resources and knowledge. But the deaths of 1000 Americans, and over 10,000 Iraqis, was totally preventable. By going to Iraq, we've made it another Ground Zero, another place for American suffering, a tragic connection of our own creation.

At the same press conference, AP News reported that Rumsfeld said "our enemies have underestimated our country, our coalition. They have failed to understand the character of our people. And they certainly misread our commander in chief." Like Bush, he seems to suffer from rhetorical dyslexia--mixing up his subjects and objects. It'd be more accurate to say that we underestimated their country and their coalition of Sunnis and Shiites. We failed to understand the character of the Iraqi people, proud and unbowing. And our commander in chief certainly misread them. Again, these administration folks have things...backwards.

This entry would not be completely meaningful if I just left it at that: my angry thoughts and my sadness at a country gone wrong. Even though it's not 1854 Balaklava and they're not the Light Brigade, our soldiers still obey and do and die because thats what soldiers do. I only hope we can recast our mission and trim our sails so that their brave efforts were not offered in vain. I try to contribute in some miniscule way, by pointing out where and how civilian leaders and citizens can be more responsible, and more worthy, of their sacrifice.

On June 19th of this year, Marine Pfc. Sean Horn died in Iraq. Before that he was stationed at Camp Pendleton, just south of Orange County. Before that, he lived right here in Irvine. He joined the Marine a year ago, just out of high school. He died of a single shot to the head, in his bunker. The military calls it a "non-combat incident". It wouldn't be right to say any more. I won't try to reason why, and in fact I don't know anything except what was written in the newswire, and at the Fallen Heroes Memorial website, where a fellow soldier wrote these words:

"sean
im so sorry i let this happen i never should have convinced you to join . i loved you like my own brother through all of it and theres nothing i can do now. but it haunts me and ill never forget you or the last time we spoke in kuwait.i love ya"

josh of al asad iraq

There's nothing we can do now, for Sean. But maybe for Josh, for the 100,000 soldiers there, for the millions of Iraqi men, women, and children, we can do something, something different. We owe them that much.

Salute what?

My Front Page Headlines Aug 30 9:29pm PT

Top Stories from Reuters	Aug 30 7:52pm PT
Republicans Salute Bush's Leadership After 9/11 Iraqi Cleric Calls Cease-fire After Bloody Uprising U.S. Guard 'Stomped on Fingers' in Iraq Jail

I think the nature of Bush's "leadership" after September 11th is amply illustrated by the next two headlines. Rather succinctly, they sketch the result of our president's decision to channel national grief and outrage into fueling his war of choice, and an occupation that was little more than a barely controlled atmosphere of violence, both American (bloody fingers) and Iraqi (bloody uprising).

The violence will dissipate and calm will return to Iraq, as the American presence dissipates among a larger international coalition and American soldiers return home. Now, that would be a win-win situation.

Congratulations, Ken Jennings!

Yesterday evening, Ken Jennings became the first person to win $1 million on "Jeopardy!" More impressive, in my opinion, has been his winning streak of 30 consecutive games. In the old days - before this year - "Jeopardy!" contestants who won five days in a row were rare. So rare that five-day champions were feted and given an early retirement.

I'm not a big Jeopardy! watcher. So I was surprised when I happened to catch the show, and hear Alex Trabek announce that the pleasant-faced blond-haired fellow who overwhelmed his competitors had won his 23rd game. That's when I learned the new rules, probably a response to the high-stakes gameplay on the "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" But Jeopardy's new format makes for superior entertainment, because an outstanding contestant will potentially appear over and over (and over and over) on the television screens and by golly, he or she is just like the audience at home.

But Ken is not just like anyone. I know this from watching the 23rd episode. I know this from hearing excerpts on KROQ's usually inane "Kevin and Bean" show. In their rock-jock stupidity, they suggested half-seriously the game was rigged. But the very fact that two idiots were talking about Jeopardy! suggests that many other people are talking about the record.

Ken's not just like anyone. But he does resemble a number of people I know. In fact, he looked vaguely familiar to me. Turns out, he played quiz bowl in college around the same time I did. Now he helps run National Academic Quiz Tournaments, or NAQT, a main engine of the collegiate quiz bowl circuit. I played in the first NAQT National Tournament in 1997, for Berkeley. Upon returning to school at Oregon, I led that team to its first Nationals berth in 2001. Ken played quiz bowl between those years, which is why I remember him vaguely.

After a bit of research, I found that Ken and his Brigham Young University team played at the first Caltech summer tournament, nicknamed Quesadilla. Ken finished 5th in the singles tournament, but the record shows he lost only to Peter Freeman and Jesse Molesworth, an astrophysicist and a English literature grad student, respectively. (Summer tournaments allow participants to be "alumni", which I was in 1999.) Ken also finished behind 4th place Dave Farris, the wizard from Edison High/Harvard/Berkeley, and my good friend, Michael Bennett, now a grad student at Chicago. Michael, if you're reading this, here's an idea to pay your way through grad school... Incidentally, 6th place finisher Pat Friel (UCLA) was the minor celebrity then, having been on Jeopardy! in 1997 and winning twice. He lost to Berkeley professor (and eventual five-day champion) Art Malia. Yes, I watched a bit more back then.

I didn't play in the singles portion of the tourney. Instead, I was driving myself and Rob Hentzel from the Bay Area that afternoon. Rob, Peter, and I won the team competition. Incidentally, individual-champion Peter was the 3rd scorer on our three-man team. Rob averaged about 8 questions, I averaged about 4, and Peter about 2.5. The overlap in knowledge between Rob and Peter skewed the team results. Still, if I was better than Peter, and Peter beat Ken... Well, that was five years ago. Mr. Jennings definitely appears a stronger player now. Yet looking back at this seemingly insignificant Saturday in my life, five years ago, definitely inspires me to try out for Jeopardy, as many friends have urged me.

But you don't have to be a nerd to be inspired. I think it's great a young person is rewarded with fame and fortune because of his knowledge, rather than his or her ability to drink snake blood or cast someone off the island. And if it takes a nice Mormon computer programmer to show America that, more power to him, and bully for us.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to watch some TV.

"Lately, it's occurred to me..."

About ten years ago, Jennine told me her writing instructor suggested that improving one's writing involved doing it every day. It was something the instructor heard from Alice Walker. Or was in Ray Bradbury?

I was reminded of this advice when I saw Amy Tan at Cal Day a few years later. She also stressed the importance of writing daily, and first thing in the morning (though according to Oscar Hijuelos, she added, one should make an exception for conjugal purposes).

Concurring is Tan's bandmate in the Rock Bottom Remainders, Stephen King. After I read On Writing, a Christmas gift from Katy, I restarted my old journal and wrote every day. For about two weeks. That was three or four years ago.

Day is the key word. I'm finding that 1:00 AM is often NOT the best time to write. Fatigued and cluttered mind aside, one's best writing conveys a sense of joy, passion, precision. Extra stuff. When I write, sometimes something will happen - a turn of phrase, perfectly placed - that never could be otherwise planned.

During the day, I am more likely to ponder aloud the thoughts swirling in my head: my 5K training regimen, the last settlement I mediated, a missing recipe for gazpacho, the current New Yorker with David Remnick's article on the prospect of Islamist politics in Egypt and Tad Friend's report on turning SF's Lusty Lady into a worker's utopia, the disappointing portrayal of native Hawaiians in entertainment media, and my thoughts on the omission of Adrian Beltre from the National League All-Star team.

I wish I could say something pithy tonight. Hmm, guess I just did.

in a democracy, there are means which no ends can justify

In the process of unifying China over 2200 years ago, its first emperor Qin Shi Huang Di attempted to crushed all dissent and debate. The great Chinese historian Sima Qian records the Qin Emperor's chief adviser, Li Si, saying thus:

"Now the August Emperor has unified all under heaven, distinguishing black from white and establishing a single source of authority. Yet these adherents of private theories band together to criticize the laws and directives. Hearing that an order has been handed down, each one proceeds to discuss it in the light of his theories. At court they disapprove in their hearts; outside they debate it in the streets. They hold it a mark of fame to defy the ruler, regard it as lofty to take a dissenting stance, and they lead the lesser officials in fabricating slander. If behavior such as this is not prohibited, then in upper circles the authority of the ruler will be compromised, and in lower ones cliques will form. Therefore it should be prohibited.

"I therefore request that all records of the historians other than those of the state of Qin be burned. With the exception of the academicians whose duty it is to possess them, if there are persons anywhere in the empire who have in their possession copies of the Odes, the Documents, or the writings of the hundred schools of philosophy, they shall in all cases deliver them to the governor or his commandant for burning. Anyone who ventures to discuss the Odes or Documents shall be executed in the marketplace. Anyone who uses antiquity to criticize the present shall be executed along with his family. Any official who observes or knows of violations and fails to report them shall be equally guilty. Anyone who has failed to burn such books within thirty days of the promulgation of this order shall be subjected to tattoo and condemned to 'wall dawn' [convict] labor. The books that are to be exempted are those on medicine, divination, agriculture, and forestry. Anyone wishing to study the laws and ordinances should have a law official for his teacher." An imperial decree granted approval of the proposal.

Ah, the good old days. While Li Si's doctrine may be abhorrent to modern minds, his rhetoric is clear and uncomplicated. That's because in the ancient world, the idea of absolute rule was accepted and desired. That emperors could have banned the different schools of philosophy is not questioned, only its desirability.

Of course, since the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of the Rights of Man, the individual has displaced the ruler at the center of government. Governing required consent of the governed, and hence, appeals to the interests of the governed. So political philosophers and the rulers who employed their ideas (and sometimes them) have had to invent schemes to increase their power using the language of individual liberty and political equality. So they invented doublespeak.

Starting almost three years ago, however, many Americans have been made to feel such fear that they "freely" expressed a desire to give up some individual rights. In this timorous climate, certain members of our government dropped their coded language and began to speak frankly about the desirability of certain speech. They would spout atavisms like:

to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty; my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists - for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends.

And later, they objected when anyone questioned their authority to denigrate those who questioned anything at all:

Anyone who reported this morning that he criticized anyone who opposed him was absolutely wrong and in doing so became a part of the exact problem he was describing.

The first quote is from John Ashcroft, and the second comes from his spokesperson, Mindy Tucker. The second in some ways scares me more than the first, because through his mouthpiece Ashcroft moved beyond targeting certain criticisms of the war on terror, to denigrating anyone who questioned him.

The quotes, which I've cut and are analyzed in full here, are from December 2001. But the same people still run the Department of Justice, and their views have not changed. In fact, those views have not changed in over 2000 years.

taking the fourth

Tonight, I took my parents to see the fireworks from the panoramic outlook just north of Dana Point Harbor. It's too bad Vicky couldn't be here - she heard about a place along the south county coast where a 360-degree view was possible. I found such a lookout point on my San Clemente ride. Just a bald clearing, flanked by the ocean on the southwest and PCH on the northeast. And walking a few yards to the south, you'll overlook the harbor and the marina. Perhaps you'll see a replica of the Pilgrim, which carried Richard Henry Dana as a seamen on a hide-gathering voyage from Boston to what was then Alta California.

That was then. This is now. But "then" reminds us that not all the land was America at once, nor all Americans. But this - who and what we are now, and have come to be - is what counts only. In first or second grade, I learned the words to "My Country, 'Tis of Thee" and every time the words "land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrims' pride!" I shuddered a little. They were serious words. But my ancestors did not die here, and they definitely weren't Pilgrims. We only sang one verse. I never learned those lines in the third, "Let mortal tongues awake, let all that breathe partake."

For all my political passion and cultural angst, I do believe America is different from every other place that came before. There is no literal "American race" or "American language". Here, citizenship confers nationality, not the other way around. The poet Shirley Geok-Lin Lim wrote that "If you come to a land with no ancestors/to bless you, you have to be your own/ancestor." That instruction confronted my parents even more than it affected me. Sometimes I forget the distances they travelled, and chasms they leaped, in so many ways, to have American children. And the person who has American children, they're Americans too.

Here's a poem by Ms. Lim which I really like.

Learning to Love America

because it has no pure products

because the Pacific Ocean sweeps along the coastline
because the water of the ocean is cold
and because land is better than ocean

because I saw we rather than they

because I live in California
I have eaten fresh artichokes
and jacarandas bloom in April and May

because my senses have caught up with my body
my breath with the air it swallows
my hunger with my mouth

because I walk barefoot in my house

because I have nursed my son at my breast
because he is a strong American boy
because I have seen his eyes redden when he is asked who he is
because he answers I don't know

because to have a son is to have a country
because my son will bury me here
because countries are in our blood and we bleed them

because it is late and too late to change my mind
because it is time.

the far side of the world

My sister arrived in Australia yesterday. She will be studying biology at the University of Tasmania for a semester. Vicky called us on her first morning in Hobart, which has made a pleasant first impression. Apparently, it's a bit like Sausalito: a laidback, resort town. She went grocery shopping at Salamanca Market, a bustling public market which reminded her of Pike Place in Seattle. She had not seen the university yet. We got an email from her today, sent out to all her friends. I'll take the liberty of sharing a part with you.

Hobart, Tasmania is very nice. It looks like a new england town that
people visit on holiday-- a little too quaint for my lifestyle but small
enough that I can walk around. It is at the foot of Mt Wellington,
which doesnt seem that high, but right now it is snowcapped. Hobart is a
30 min drive to the top, and also a 20 minute drive to the bay, which i
think is pretty cool. It's wintertime here, which is comparable to so
Cal's winter, about 9 degrees Celsius, but way more sunlight. Damn
hole in the ozone layer. It is also windier so you'd have to wear 3
layers instead of 2. and gloves. and a hat.

The people have been pretty friendly so far, but I havent met my
flatmates yet, or any other students. my room has a nice view of the river
and the city, and I will post pictures on my geocities or livejournal
when i have the means.

(to her housemate): i wish i had gone to see a rugby match with you
because the aussies are really into "footy" which i gather is sort of like
american football and soccer and rugby.

...I am glad i got to hang out with most of you before i left. it was
good times and I miss you already. for those i whom i did not see, well,
it sucks to be me.

lost in translation:
give way = yield (traffic sign)
rubbish = trash
toilet= restroom
chemist = pharmacy
take away= takeout
no worries= no problem = ain't no thang

hope to hear from you!
vix

I'm sure she'll soon write more about her Tasmanian adventures in her fabulous journal. A moment's glance through it makes me realize that she's become her own adult person. My parents and I are thrilled for her. No, Vicky, it does not suck to be you...

Open House

I would like to welcome everyone to my new weblog. You may notice a link to February 2004, when I wrote my first entry, but today is the first time I am promoting it. Besides, if a tree falls in a forest and no one hears, does it really make a sound? Or as NBC executives cynically advertise their reruns, "It's new to you!"

Why the long wait? I wanted to make sure that I was inviting my friends and interested strangers to something worth their while. To meet that threshold, I needed to find subjects and ideas that were worth my while to write about them consistently. At the same time, I hoped to develop a way of approaching serious issues and significant moments without letting myself become too heavy, dull, or both.

My favorite novelist, Italo Calvino, dealt with a similar problem as a young writer:

When I began my career, the categorical imperative of every young writer was to represent his own time. Full of good intentions, I tried to identify myself with the ruthless energies propelling the events of our century, both collective and individual. I tried to find some harmony between the adventurous, picaresque inner rhythm that prompted me to write and the frantic spectacle of the world, sometimes dramatic and sometimes grotesque. Soon I became aware that between the facts of life that should have been my raw materials and the quick light touch I wanted for my writing, there was a gulf that cost me increasing effort to cross. Maybe I was only then becoming aware of the weight, the inertia, the opacity of the world -- qualities that stick to writing from the start, unless one finds some way of evading them.

He goes on in his essay "Lightness" to champion writing with a light touch, with agility, to countenance the weight of the world. That's my rough summary. You can find that essay among his Six Memos for the Next Millenium, which he composed for the 1985-86 Charles Eliot Norton Lectures at Harvard University. Before Calvino could deliver them, he died suddenly.

It is hard to write the things of this world, sometimes harder to write about one's own life. The word petrify doesn't seem out of place, both in striking fear into your soul (can I really do this?), and silencing you with weight (will I ever read this?). I've been told that I write well, but I don't know if that's true. However, it's also true I have few other talents. So why don't we get this party started?

Hello, my name is Philip. I grew up in Orange County. I live in Irvine, which promises to be the setting of many amusing stories. Often, I'll write about current events, from the tragedy in Madrid to this year's elections to the infant formula lobby. News can get too heavy to write or even think about. Sometimes I'll talk about favorite music or my adventures in mediation. And once in a while, I'll reflect on a life well lived. I hope such a life can be mine.

Please, add your thoughts in the comments section. Make suggestions, requests, and of course, comments. This journal, like my writing, my career, and my life, is a work in progress. Unlike certain leaders of the free world, I am quite glad to recognize certain aspects of life as team work. Wrote Emily Dickinson,

A sepal, petal and a thorn
Upon a common summer's morn-
A flask of Dew-a Bee or two-
A Breeze-a caper in the trees-
And I'm a Rose!

A song of experience

In my Blakean year
I was so disposed
Toward a mission yet unclear
Advancing pole by pole

Fortune breathed into my ear
Mouthed a simple ode
One road is paved in gold
One road is just a road

In my Blakean year
Such a woeful schism
The pain of our existence
Was not as I envisioned

Boots that trudged from track to track
Worn down to the sole
One road is paved in gold
One road is just a road

by Patti Smith

There's a record store called HEAR Music in Santa Monica. It started in Cambridge, and popped up in Berkeley during the late 90s. I spotted one at the Metreon in San Francisco during the boom days, but now it's gone. Relatively few people have ever set foot in HEAR Music. But more than a few have heard their Artist's Choice compilations (Ray Charles, Lucinda Williams, Sarah McLachlan), courtesy of the frothy caffeinated juggernaut and its owner Howard Schultz, who now runs it.

My wanderings around 4th Street's HEAR Music figure prominently in my post-graduate Berkeley days. Sometimes after running to the Marina, I'd stop in and listen to a record I'd never heard before. I believe that store held the record for most listening stations per square foot. That's where I first heard albums by Lucinda, Belle and Sebastian, Nick Drake, Townes Van Zandt, Pink Martinis, Billy Bragg, Caetano Veloso, Art Blakey and the Messengers... This eclectic array of musicians ensured that my adult tastes did not calcify at 22, nor grow bland with radio.

I didn't buy a lot of CDs during those Bay Area boom years. After all, I was a teacher. My road was just a road. Or so it seemed. Those exciting tech jobs held by many friends and acquaintances don't exist anymore, nor in many cases do the companies. But the institutions where I worked are still around, and still needed. My biggest regret? That I virtually stopped writing for an audience, or a cause. I suppose I am trying to, ahem, start up again.

Yesterday afternoon, Jukka and I ran the east-west length of Santa Monica and strolled down the 3rd Street Promenade. HEAR Music's appeal hasn't faded with time and taste. If anything, SoCal's cultural shortcomings make the record store even worthier of a visit. And so I was rewarded with a new discovery, Patti Smith's "Trampin".

This is not a CD review. I and my slight Manichaean tendencies in writing are not suitable for aesthetic criticism. (See what I mean? Not suitable!) I will say a little about why I like her lyrical writing, and what her example means to me.

A look at her discography shows the Patti Smith Group made four albums in five years, the last (1979) capped off by a stadium concert of 70,000 cheering Italians. I knew none of this when I heard "Because the Night" as a college freshman, almost fifteen years later. Or when KFOG played "Dancing Barefoot" or her version of "Gloria", with its defiant opening line torn from her early poem, "Oath": "Jesus died for somebody's sins/but not mine." Or when I discovered her Early Work, and one of my favorite lyrics about being American, "Notebook". Or when I saw her at the Bridge Concert, leading Neil Young and Pearl Jam and the Bridge School children in a rousing rendition of "People Have the Power".

I did not know that she had spent a decade and a half as a housewife in suburban Detroit, with her husband Fred "Sonic" Smith. The godmother of punk and guitarist of the proto-punk MC5, playing house and raising two kids. Imagine that. What is true of most people is also true for most artists: the most fruitful or personally rewarding life may not always be the most ambitious or artistically productive. "I never did miss fame," she has said. "What I really missed was a good cup of coffee."

Or to quote "Oath": "I can make my own light shine/and darkness too is equally fine"

We can take that line to mean confidence in one's ability to choose the good and the "sinful". Or perhaps also, comfort in choosing the path of fame and fortune or a life of obscurity. And not regretting the choice of either. But it is either. And many people are not comfortable with that, because they think they can have both, when in reality not many can live with either well.

If I consider the quiet and fairly happy life of obscurity that was Patti Smith's life, or that William Blake earned a living from engraving in order to support his poetry habit, then I scorn to change my state with kings, or Supreme Court justices. And for a moment I cease to regret that I didn't write in 1999 or whenever, because hey, I was teaching kids algebra in a neighborhood the New Economy forgot. I can make my own light shine, and darkness too is equally fine...

So. What I like uniquely about Patti Smith, is that her voice, her energy, is neither male nor female. Like many 70s icons (David Bowie, for one), her image is essentially androgynous. But I'm talking beyond image, about the music itself. Her voice and lyrics pulse with intelligence and passion. And those qualities are neither male nor female. Often you can read a poem or song lyric and say, oh a guy wrote it, or a girl wrote it. And many fine lyrics are like that. But what a feat of the universal to transcend the experience of gender, how pure is that? How pure is white light? Or the human heart? Or grief? Or being American? And to transcend it in popular music, with a voice both wise and vigorous and kind.

Formula 1, Babies 0

A friend of mine gave birth to her second child last month. She would not be pleased with the following story, which I found on Motley Fool:

According to an ABC News report published last Friday, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) first postponed, then watered down, a series of TV ads promoting breast-feeding of infants -- at the request of the infant formula industry.

The ads, slated to air six months ago, originally conveyed in stark terms the increased risks of bottle-feeding: respiratory, urinary tract, and ear infections during infancy; asthma and diabetes during childhood; high blood pressure and obesity in adulthood. Most notably, the ads reported that infants who were not breast-fed were more prone to leukemia than breast-fed babies.

To make a long story short, executives in the $8 billion dollar industry of infant formula manufacturing became alarmed. They sent their reps to lobby Washington, where Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson gave them a private audience. Halliburton, anyone?

Breast-feeding advocates - you know, people like mothers and doctors - sought to meet with Thompson, but they were turned down. You can read more at the full ABC News article, which also provides a link to the "thank you" letter written by Clayton Yuetter, formula lobbyist and former GOP chair. "Dear Tommy", the letter begins. Rather curdling, I think.

At least several of the public service ads aired, at the beginning of June. But the watered-down versions may not be enough to counter the millions of dollars spent promoting infant formula in hospitals and doctor's offices, something that formula mankers Abbott Labs and Bristol-Myers Squibb honed into an art form while pushing their pharmacuetical products. Can we educate a new generation of mothers and give newborns a healthy start? We don't know, not until the babies grow up either granted or deprived of the substantial protections that evolution has bestowed on human beings through mother's milk.

Speaking of protections, I think this sad incident exemplifies a weakness of democratic capitalism. First, in cases of public health the benefits are often great but diffuse. Clean air, clean water, breast milk, etc. However, in our economy the man-made sources of damage are often controlled by a few or at least organized very well. So the organized few can act to preserve their flow of profits, at the expense of the diffuse many, who in a democracy should win. Until very large groups can organize around their common interests (parents, immigrants, skateboarders) and transcend internal differences, the many will not prevail over the few.

Second, the people who lack political resources are the vulnerable elements of society, and hence the ones who need it the most. And I cannot think of anyone more vulnerable, or less blameworthy, than an infant. Obviously the infant has an interest in his or her own health, but in most political systems the infant has no voice. Congressional districts count infants. Why not elections, at least in such child-relevant areas as health care and education. Yes, a parent votes, but those issues concern both parent and child. Parents manage their children's money and lives, why not their votes too?

Finally, has anyone noticed that there's no breast milk lobby? Yes, doctors, scientists and parents advocate for it, but nobody will spend big money to do so. That's because there's no money in winning an argument for a product that is, essentially, free. You don't have to be a socialist to acknowledge that the best things in life are free. A socialist might say that good things and services should be free, or at low cost to everyone. But what I mean by free things are gifts of nature, like air and water and seeds that won't Terminate. Rather than adding to things we want, some folks try to take away what we already have and sell it back to us. Wouldn't the latter be detrimental to human health and welfare? And isn't that just the sort of job where a Secretary of Health and Human Services would lead the way? Dear Tommy . . . do your job!

Until we start fighting for those things that are free, we'll keep losing them, and the loss will feel very precious indeed.

Oregon Trails

On Friday, I dusted the cobwebs from my bike and rode along PCH to San Clemente. I hadn't planned to make it there, but I felt like going after reaching Laguna Beach, and then Dana Point. The weather was unusually cool for June, and the cloud cover was helpful. I made a number of short detours, the first at my friend Albert's place in a new development, Oak Creek, near I-405 and Jeffrey Rd. His neighbor Rory spotted me, and when he saw my bike, showed me the three he owned and talked up a storm about local trails and such. He handed me a bunch of maps from his car, mostly Southern California stuff but there was one of Central Oregon.

"Why Oregon?" I asked him, curious. I knew he was a LA native.

"Oh, I went to Mt. Batchelor." For skiing, of course.

I was about to close the map when I saw in the small sectioned-off, right-hand corner, a map of the Mackenzie River Trail - without question, the most beautiful place I've ever biked, in the most beautiful state I've ever been.

Here's one of the last letters I wrote in Oregon, to one who had left recently.

"I am glad to see that you are alive and well! Tanya and I were a bit worried. We were Portland this past weekend and met up with an old friend of mine, Linda. We saw elaborate sand castles in Pioneer Square. Walked around Saturday Market. Drove along the Columbia Gorge, which Linda had never seen. Visited Hood River for the Cherry Festival. It was late-afternoon but the farmer at Alice's, a third-generation Japanese American, took us in his cart for a tour of the pear and cherry farm. Had no idea so many varieties besides Bing and Rainier existed. We sampled extra-large Lapins, and slightly bitter Black Republicans. (Wonder why they call 'em that.) The sky was clear blue, except for the giant clouds massing around Mt. Hood. I'll miss Oregon."

"Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right..."

Today I returned to my main job-like activity for the past two plus months: working as a small-claims mediator at Orange County Superior Court. It's nice to be active again, using the Alternate Dispute Resolution skills I learned during law school, and providing a needed service to the community.

I have mediated or co-mediated about 30 cases, reaching a settlement in all but one. Business disputes, landlords and tenants, creditors and debtors, ex-boyfriends and girlfriends - I've handled the whole range. I like the business cases most (contractors, credit unions, etc). That may seem counterintuitive for a "fuzzy" like me, but in fact such disputes only involve money and are the least stressful, for the parties, and hence for me. Those people tend to be nice and are almost always professional. Today a man agreed to repay several hundred dollars mistakenly deposited into his bank account - the second time this mix-up has landed on my lap. Apparently, he spent this money by the time the bank caught its mistake.

Since mediation is voluntary, almost everyone who participates is civil - as they chose to negotiate an agreement with my help, rather than argue their case before a judge (like they had intended). In fact, roughly half of my "successful" resolutions are worked out in principle by the parties in the hallways before they talk to me. That happened today. So my awesome success rate has little to do with my abilities as a mediator, which are just adequate enough not to impede them from helping themselves.

Even though I've chosen the path of law, I believe that the law often interferes with justice and fairness - not only in its "objective" meaning, but also in its shared "subjective" meaning. The former is easy to understand. By the latter, I mean that the law may take a dispute out of the hands of the two parties. Mostly for the good of society, which wants to discourage a plaintiff or victim from resorting to "self-help" (i.e., me and a few buddies). And if the original act was criminal...

However, in some cases, two people or organizations might want to resolve their dispute without going through civil litigation. Neighbors, family members, parents sharing custody of children, people with long-term business relationships benefit from sitting down and resolving their argument without the time, cost, and emotional strife that lengthy litigation or even small-claims court, can bring. Even a small formal step such as being served by a stranger is off-putting to many people. And personally, I enjoy being the neutral, the third-party who brings people together, helps them realize what their shared interests are, and leaves them on friendly terms with each other, sometimes even a hug between former friends.

Mediation holds natural incentives for both plaintiff and defendant (if you're wondering why they'd show up). For the defendant, it's a way to resolve their situation without a court judgment. They may not owe the whole amount, but most of the time they owe something - and if a judge enters that "something" against them, it will damage their credit rating for years to come. For the plaintiff, payment is more likely if the defendant helped fashion the payment plan himself, as the court does not assist plaintiff in collecting judgment.

For myself, I need to purge from my system the emotional traces from the more complicated cases. Sometimes I don't realize how a certain defendant or plaintiff or broken relationship has stayed in my mind. And I could do better to find ways to find release - other than reading, which if it involves the news does the opposite! Even something simple like treating myself to ice cream, or catching an afternoon matinee alone - I can't recall the last time I did either. Sounds fairly pitiful, no? Striking a steady balance between extremes: if I can help others do it, surely I can help myself.