They Did What !

Why is there no huge public outcry about the barefaced and repeated disconnects between what our leaders say and what they do?

What was said: After Katrina, President Bush pledged to rebuild New Orleans.

What was done: Two years later the only part of the levee system that the Army Corps of Engineers has secured, to the tune of $1 billion, is in the wealthy parts of town that were not decimated by Katrina. In the low lying poor areas where the devastation occurred, nothing has been done. Now: President Bush is going back to the Gulf Coast for the two year anniversary of Katrina. You can bet your bottom dollar this photo-op will feature a select group of locals that does not include anyone from the 9th Ward.

What was said: President Bush patted himself on the back proclaiming that economic deregulation was creating an “ownership society” and the supposed-to-be-watchdog Congress twiddled their collective thumbs.

What was done: The lending industry made money hand over fist making subprime loans that turned the economic foundation of the housing market to quicksand. In the past year more than a million homeowners sank in that quicksand and millions more are teetering on the edge. Now: Everyone is shocked, horrified, and finger pointing. How did this happen! And of course there is the inevitable discussion about a taxpayer bail out… not for the homeowners, for the lending industry…the S&L fiasco all over again.

What was said : When he was inaugurated, George W. Bush said, “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.“ In his second inaugural address he said, “On this day, prescribed by law and marked by ceremony, we celebrate the durable wisdom of our Constitution.”

At his swearing-in as Vice President, Richard B Cheney said, “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

What was done: A partial list of what they have done is in the August 1, issue of The Washington Spectator: “The willful manipulation of intelligence to justify a war in Iraq; the decision to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and wiretap American citizens; the outing of a covert CIA official and the subsequent cover-up that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald describes as “a cloud over the vice president”; the use of torture in violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, under which both Cheney and Bush could be charged and tried by any of the 194 countries that are signatories to the conventions, meet and exceed the constitutional “high crimes and misdemeanors” standard…” Now: Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced a resolution to impeach Dick Cheney who continues to threaten world peace by his attempts to provoke the Iranians with threats of military action. There is no limit to the damage Cheney can do given another seventeen months in office.

If ever there was a time for people to step up and speak out, it is now.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 12:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Why are none of the presidential candidates assuring the American people that once elected, they will:

• Restore checks and balances to all branches of our government.

• Rescind the imperial powers usurped by the Executive Branch.

• Reduce the military industrial complex so that “security and liberty may prosper together"*

• Put in place new safeguards to prevent such unconstitutional actions by any future administration.

Just electing a different party will not bring our country back to its former standing as a land that offers freedom and equality to all; or reinstate our reputation as a country that respects human rights and helps those in need. That will only happen with the restoration of the constitutional protections striped away by the current administration. Without this reinstatement of our Constitution, the government can continue to run amok no matter who is in charge. The precedents set in the past six years are dangerous and undoing that damage and making sure none of them are used to justify future actions is of paramount importance.

This is not something candidates should talk about in an abbreviated manner as part of a long list of things that they will deal with if elected. We need the candidates to make a commitment in plain and unequivocal terms that this will be their first priority if elected. Then and only then should we consider supporting them.

The accomplishment of this restoration is necessary to forming the foundation that makes possible the achievement of all the other changes the candidates talk about. Ending the war, improving the economy, making health care available, securing pensions, bringing solvency to Social Security and Medicare are all issues of concern to most Americans. But none of these can be accomplished unless we first restore our Constitution. Without a commitment to do this, we won’t get our country back.

We the people need to raise and continue raising this issue because the press, especially television news, is no longer dependable as an institution that informs and helps to protect the populace. They no longer ask the hard questions or pursue the answers so necessary for the public good. We have to demand these answers and push the media to stay focused on what really matters. Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan will just have to pursue self-destruction without national coverage.

* Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

Posted by Trish Purcell at 01:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

Once upon a time in a kingdom called the Land of Liberty there were two distinct political parties.

One, called conservatives, aka the Republican Party, represented business. They were the defenders of the capitalistic system – the dominance of private owners of capital and production for profit – all the things that matter to business and the wealthy

The other, called liberals, aka the Democratic Party, represented the people. They were the champions of social issues – wages, worker’s rights, education, health care, the rights of the elderly and disabled – all the things that matter to the poor and the middle class.

Obviously, from these descriptions, the liberals were the good guys, fighting for the rights of the little people. And the conservatives, while not exactly the bad guys, were primarily concerned with things that had to do with money. For many years the two parties balanced each other. They took turns being in power and each in its turn made up for the shortcomings of the other. And the Land of Liberty grew and prospered.

Then one day, conservatives, decided just making a profit was not enough. They wanted the power to make lots and lots of money. And they realized they needed the people behind them to accomplish that. So they began a long campaign to convince people that they were the ones who represented families and their values.

There was absolutely nothing in their history to back up this claim but they knew if they said it often enough and loudly enough, people would begin to believe it. And so they did. To add force to their claims, they began to label liberals as the supporters of “godless” behavior and lifestyles.

Their plan worked. People were so distracted by emotional and divisive issues like abortion, homosexuality and gun control, they failed to notice what was going on in the background. The conservatives never swerved from their defense of the capitalists but rather, while waving the banner of family values, undermined the protections that had been put in place for those very families.

The media, more and more under the control of big conglomerates kept talking about those distracting issues and so were called liberal. But the reality was that having those issues in the news served the purposes of conservatives, not liberals. And the real liberal issues, wages, worker’s rights, education, healthcare and all the rest, were rarely in the spotlight. There were occasional sacrificial lambs when unrest and rumbling began and that calmed the people and once again lulled them into a false sense of confidence in their conservative “protectors.”

So it came to pass that the conservatives got the power they wanted. They reigned supreme for six years and as they accomplished their goals, one by one, a large mound began to form in the center of the land. The people began to notice an odor and started to question and refused to be soothed. The stories about the goodness and compassion of the conservatives began to ring false. And the people discovered the great mound and began to dig. It was large and evil smelling and digging was hard work. But finally they reached the bottom and there it was… the root of all that evil… MONEY!

Posted by Trish Purcell at 11:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

The mainstream media – frequently referred to as the liberal media – is obviously supporting Hilary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for President. The newscasters, analysts, and commentators, declare her the winner in the debates, the leader of the pack, the most qualified, and on and on. They are really doing a hard sell job on her candidacy. Why do you think that is?

First, isn’t “liberal media” an oxymoron? Who owns all the networks and most of the print media?

Last time I looked it was big corporations which for the most part are not known to be very liberal. And if you take the time to look at the so called liberal stories that get major mainstream media attention you will find they tend to be the hot button issues that divide and distract like abortion, gay marriage, etc. - issues that stir up different factions, and encourage endless and non-productive wrangling.

What you will not find is detailed and thorough coverage on the real liberal issues – workers rights, health care, Social Security, etc. – all the issues that deal with the real world of us common folk. There are a lot of important things that we need to be informed about that get little or no mention on our nightly newscasts or in our local and national newspapers. Does that sound like a liberal media to you?

So, that leads to the next question: Why would non-liberal big business support Hilary Clinton? Could it be that she represents the best chance for continuing business as usual in Washington?

Hilary keeps touting her experience as a reason to elect her. But think about what her experience is. How is electing someone experienced in, and a party to, the current way of doing business in Washington, going to bring about change? Is she suddenly going to operated differently? And if she does, then of what value is her experience?

The issue is not that she is a woman. It is not whether or not she is likable. It has nothing to do with her clothes or her facial expressions. The issue is: Hilary Clinton is part of the current establishment. Do we want to continue that establishment? Or do we want real change? If we want a new order in Washington we won’t get it by electing, over and over, the same people to run our government.

Think about it!

Posted by Trish Purcell at 05:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Depending on your point of view, if you speak out, the response from some will likely be that you hate America or you are unpatriotic; or by others that you are trying to blur the line between church and state, or you are too biased to see the truth.

These aren’t really “responses” - they do not deal with what you said. Rather, they are dialogue stoppers that essentially tell you to shut up; just another way of saying, “My mind is made up and I am not interested in hearing anything that does not confirm what I already believe.”

I remember when there were discussions in which people with opposing views actually exchanged ideas. These were interesting, animated exchanges that offered ideas and possibilities I would have spent a lifetime discovering on my own. Sometimes viewpoints were broadened or even changed. These experiences showed that refusing to re-examine opinions and closing my mind to the possibility that I might be mistaken in my conclusions, was to set my mind in cement at a specific point in time and never more to move forward.

The world continues to grow and change. If we are unable or unwilling to grow and change along with it, we arrest our own development. That is not to say that all change or all progress is good. But how will we know, if we are unwilling to examine it from all sides?

This was never more obvious than in today’s political arena. We have set up models for ourselves of closed minded behavior in left leaning political rants on the opinion pages of our newspapers and in the right leaning rants on our radio talk shows. Neither of these mediums encourages an honest exchange of ideas or any kind of real dialogue. They are simply take-no-prisoners monologues. They most certainly promote heavily biased ideas to the readers and listeners. How is that productive? Who is served by promoting such polarized political stances?

Mahatma Ghandi once said, “Evolution of democracy is not possible if we are not prepared to hear the other side.” So the real question seems to be, how rather than if to speak or not to speak. Perhaps a change in tone, a conscious willingness to really listen, would promote dialogue that might just bring us together instead of pushing us apart.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 01:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)