Little Brother Forum

I know, I know, I said there would be no more postings on this site. Quite frankly I got so fed up I went on a self imposed news fast. But Iowa is about to happen and I find myself unable to completely stay away (kind of like a bad toothache). In my box this morning was a letter from Michael Moore. He pretty much says exactly how I feel and it made me smile. I’m hoping and praying the good people of Iowa remember what’s important and do the right thing.

Here’s the letter:

Who Do We Vote For This Time Around? A Letter from Michael Moore

January 2, 2008

Friends,

A new year has begun. And before we’ve had a chance to break our New Year’s resolutions, we find ourselves with a little more than 24 hours before the good people of Iowa tell us whom they would like to replace the man who now occupies three countries and a white house.

Twice before, we have begun the process to stop this man, and twice we have failed. Eight years of our lives as Americans will have been lost, the world left in upheaval against us… and yet now, today, we hope against hope that our moment has finally arrived, that the amazingly powerful force of the Republican Party will somehow be halted. But we know that the Democrats are experts at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and if there’s a way to blow this election, they will find it and do it with gusto.

Do you feel the same as me? That the Democratic front-runners are a less-than-stellar group of candidates, and that none of them are the “slam dunk” we wish they were? Of course, there are wonderful things about each of them. Any one of them would be infinitely better than what we have now. Personally, Congressman Kucinich, more than any other candidate, shares the same positions that I have on the issues (although the UFO that picked ME up would only take me as far as Kalamazoo). But let’s not waste time talking about Dennis. Even he is resigned to losing, with statements like the one he made yesterday to his supporters in Iowa to throw their support to Senator Obama as their “second choice.”

So, it’s Hillary, Obama, Edwards — now what do we do?

Two months ago, Rolling Stone magazine asked me to do a cover story where I would ask the hard questions that no one was asking in one-on-one interviews with Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards. “The Top Democrats Face Off with Michael Moore.” The deal was that all three candidates had to agree to let me interview them or there was no story. Obama and Edwards agreed. Mrs. Clinton said no, and the cover story was thus killed.

Why would the love of my life, Hillary Clinton, not sit down to talk with me? What was she afraid of?

Those of you who are longtime readers of mine may remember that 11 years ago I wrote a chapter (in my first book) entitled, “My Forbidden Love for Hillary.” I was fed up with the treatment she was getting, most of it boringly sexist, and I thought somebody should stand up for her. I later met her and she thanked me for referring to her as “one hot s***kicking feminist babe.” I supported and contributed to her run for the U.S. Senate. I think she is a decent and smart person who loves this country, cares deeply about kids, and has put up with more crap than anyone I know of (other than me) from the Crazy Right. Her inauguration would be a thrilling sight, ending 218 years of white male rule in a country where 51% of its citizens are female and 64% are either female or people of color.

And yet, I am sad to say, nothing has disappointed me more than the disastrous, premeditated vote by Senator Hillary Clinton to send us to war in Iraq. I’m not only talking about her first vote that gave Mr. Bush his “authorization” to invade — I’m talking about every single OTHER vote she then cast for the next four years, backing and funding Bush’s illegal war, and doing so with verve. She never met a request from the White House for war authorization that she didn’t like. Unlike the Kerrys and the Bidens who initially voted for authorization but later came to realize the folly of their decision, Mrs. Clinton continued to cast numerous votes for the war until last March — four long years of pro-war votes, even after 70% of the American public had turned against the war. She has steadfastly refused to say that she was wrong about any of this, and she will not apologize for her culpability in America’s worst-ever foreign policy disaster. All she can bring herself to say is that she was “misled” by “faulty intelligence.”

Let’s assume that’s true. Do you want a President who is so easily misled? I wasn’t “misled,” and millions of others who took to the streets in February of 2003 weren’t “misled” either. It was simply amazing that we knew the war was wrong when none of us had been briefed by the CIA, none of us were national security experts, and none of us had gone on a weapons inspection tour of Iraq. And yet… we knew we were being lied to! Let me ask those of you reading this letter: Were YOU “misled” — or did you figure it out sometime between October of 2002 and March of 2007 that George W. Bush was up to something rotten? Twenty-three other senators were smart enough to figure it out and vote against the war from the get-go. Why wasn’t Senator Clinton?

I have a theory: Hillary knows the sexist country we still live in and that one of the reasons the public, in the past, would never consider a woman as president is because she would also be commander in chief. The majority of Americans were concerned that a woman would not be as likely to go to war as a man (horror of horrors!). So, in order to placate that mindset, perhaps she believed she had to be as “tough” as a man, she had to be willing to push The Button if necessary, and give the generals whatever they wanted. If this is, in fact, what has motivated her pro-war votes, then this would truly make her a scary first-term president. If the U.S. is faced with some unforeseen threat in her first years, she knows that in order to get re-elected she’d better be ready to go all Maggie Thatcher on whoever sneezes in our direction. Do we want to risk this, hoping the world makes it in one piece to her second term?

I have not even touched on her other numerous — and horrendous — votes in the Senate, especially those that have made the middle class suffer even more (she voted for Bush’s first bankruptcy bill, and she is now the leading recipient of payoff money — I mean campaign contributions — from the health care industry). I know a lot of you want to see her elected, and there is a very good chance that will happen. There will be plenty of time to vote for her in the general election if all the pollsters are correct. But in the primaries and caucuses, isn’t this the time to vote for the person who most reflects the values and politics you hold dear? Can you, in good conscience, vote for someone who so energetically voted over and over and over again for the war in Iraq? Please give this serious consideration.

Now, on to the two candidates who did agree to do the interview with me…

Barack Obama is a good and inspiring man. What a breath of fresh air! There’s no doubting his sincerity or his commitment to trying to straighten things out in this country. But who is he? I mean, other than a guy who gives a great speech? How much do any of us really know about him? I know he was against the war. How do I know that? He gave a speech before the war started. But since he joined the senate, he has voted for the funds for the war, while at the same time saying we should get out. He says he’s for the little guy, but then he votes for a corporate-backed bill to make it harder for the little guy to file a class action suit when his kid swallows lead paint from a Chinese-made toy. In fact, Obama doesn’t think Wall Street is a bad place. He wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan — the same companies who have created the mess in the first place. He’s such a feel-good kinda guy, I get the sense that, if elected, the Republicans will eat him for breakfast. He won’t even have time to make a good speech about it.

But this may be a bit harsh. Senator Obama has a big heart, and that heart is in the right place. Is he electable? Will more than 50% of America vote for him? We’d like to believe they would. We’d like to believe America has changed, wouldn’t we? Obama lets us feel better about ourselves — and as we look out the window at the guy snowplowing his driveway across the street, we want to believe he’s changed, too. But are we dreaming?

And then there’s John Edwards.

It’s hard to get past the hair, isn’t it? But once you do — and recently I have chosen to try — you find a man who is out to take on the wealthy and powerful who have made life so miserable for so many. A candidate who says things like this: “I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy.” Whoa. We haven’t heard anyone talk like that in a while, at least not anyone who is near the top of the polls. I suspect this is why Edwards is doing so well in Iowa, even though he has nowhere near the stash of cash the other two have. He won’t take the big checks from the corporate PACs, and he is alone among the top three candidates in agreeing to limit his spending and be publicly funded. He has said, point-blank, that he’s going after the drug companies and the oil companies and anyone else who is messing with the American worker. The media clearly find him to be a threat, probably because he will go after their monopolistic power, too. This is Roosevelt/Truman kind of talk. That’s why it’s resonating with people in Iowa, even though he doesn’t get the attention Obama and Hillary get — and that lack of coverage may cost him the first place spot tomorrow night. After all, he is one of those white guys who’s been running things for far too long.

And he voted for the war. But unlike Senator Clinton, he has stated quite forcefully that he was wrong. And he has remorse. Should he be forgiven? Did he learn his lesson? Like Hillary and Obama, he refused to promise in a September debate that there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq by the end of his first term in 2013. But this week in Iowa, he changed his mind. He went further than Clinton and Obama and said he’d have all the troops home in less than a year.

Edwards is the only one of the three front-runners who has a universal health care plan that will lead to the single-payer kind all other civilized countries have. His plan doesn’t go as fast as I would like, but he is the only one who has correctly pointed out that the health insurance companies are the enemy and should not have a seat at the table.

I am not endorsing anyone at this point. This is simply how I feel in the first week of the process to replace George W. Bush. For months I’ve been wanting to ask the question, “Where are you, Al Gore?” You can only polish that Oscar for so long. And the Nobel was decided by Scandinavians! I don’t blame you for not wanting to enter the viper pit again after you already won. But getting us to change out our incandescent light bulbs for some irritating fluorescent ones isn’t going to save the world. All it’s going to do is make us more agitated and jumpy and feeling like once we get home we haven’t really left the office.

On second thought, would you even be willing to utter the words, “I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy?” ‘Cause the candidate who understands that, and who sees it as the root of all evil — including the root of global warming — is the President who may lead us to a place of sanity, justice and peace.

Yours,

Michael Moore (not an Iowa voter, but appreciative of any state that has a town named after a sofa)
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

Bill Poovey/Associated Press Writer/October 3, 2007

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. - In an unlikely marriage of desire to secede from the United States, two advocacy groups from opposite political traditions — New England and the South — are sitting down to talk.

Tired of foreign wars and what they consider right-wing courts, the Middlebury Institute wants liberal states like Vermont to be able to secede peacefully.

That sounds just fine to the League of the South, a conservative group that refuses to give up on Southern independence.

“We believe that an independent South, or Hawaii, Alaska, or Vermont would be better able to serve the interest of everybody, regardless of race or ethnicity,” said Michael Hill of Killen, Ala., president of the League of the South. (more…)

AFP/October 2, 2008

The United States, under fire for not taking in more Iraqis displaced by the war, plans to admit 12,000 refugees from the strife-torn country before October 1, 2008, a US official said Tuesday.

“Our plans for FY (fiscal year) 2008 include processing enough Iraqi refugees to admit 12,000 during the fiscal year,” which began Monday, the US official said on condition of anonymity.

The official’s comments came as US President George W. Bush told US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in an official memorandum that the United States looked to welcome a maximum of 80,000 refugees over the next 12 months.

As of September 19, when it named a special coordinator for Iraqi refugees to help break the bureaucratic red tape that has held back thousands from entering the country, the US government had admitted about 900, well short of the target number of 7,000, according to official US figures. (more…)

Paul von Zielbauer/New York Times/September 28, 2007

Camp Liberty, Iraq - An Army sniper is taught to kill people “calmly and deliberately,” even when they pose no immediate danger to him. “A sniper,” Army Field Manual 23-10 goes on to state, “must not be susceptible to emotions such as anxiety or remorse.”

But in a crowded military courtroom seemingly stunned into silence on Thursday, Sgt. Evan Vela all but broke down as he described firing two bullets into an unarmed Iraqi man his unit arrested last May.

In anguished, eloquent sentences, Sergeant Vela, a member of an elite sniper scout platoon with the First Battalion, 501st Infantry Regiment, quietly described how his squad leader, Staff Sgt. Michael A. Hensley, cut off the man’s handcuffs, wrestled him to his feet and ordered Sergeant Vela, standing a few feet away, to fire the 9-millimeter service pistol into the detainee’s head.

“I heard the word ‘Shoot,’” Sergeant Vela recalled. “I don’t remember pulling the trigger,” he said. “I just came through and the guy was dead, and it just took me a second to realize the shot had come from the pistol.”

Then, Sergeant Vela said, as the man, a suspected insurgent, convulsed on the ground, Sergeant Hensley kicked him in the throat and told Sergeant Vela to shoot him again. Sergeant Vela, who is not on trial but faces murder charges in connection with the killing, said he fired a second time.

His testimony on Thursday, in the court-martial of Specialist Jorge G. Sandoval Jr., another sniper who is accused of murder, provided a glimpse into the dark moments of a platoon exhausted, emotionally and physically, by days-long missions in the region south of Baghdad that soldiers call the “triangle of death.” In their testimony, Sergeant Vela and other soldiers described how their teams were pushed beyond limits by battalion commanders eager to raise their kill ratio against a ruthless enemy. (more…)

Associated Press/September 26, 2007

An Iraq war veteran said Tuesday he is returning his military medals in what anti-war groups are calling a rare and powerful protest.

Josh Gaines, 27, plans to mail the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and National Defense Service Medal to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He said he would do so during a protest scheduled for today in Madison.

“I’m going to give those back because I truly feel that I did not defend my nation and I did not help with the Global War on Terrorism,” said Gaines, who lives in Madison. “If anything, this conflict has bred more terrorism in the Middle East.”

Gaines served a yearlong tour in Iraq between 2004 and 2005 with the U.S. Army Reserve. He spent his time guarding two military bases and issuing ammunition to soldiers but never fired a weapon, he said.

The experience convinced him that the war was a mistake and that a steady withdrawal of troops was the right course of action, Gaines said.

“To be quite honest, I felt like we wasted taxpayers’ money,” he said. “The mission just didn’t seem correct and right for that time.” (more…)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE/Michael Mariotte, Executive Director/September 25, 2007

NEW REACTORS IN SOUTH TEXAS WOULD SET U.S. ENERGY POLICY ON MISGUIDED COURSE

Today, NRG Energy said it is submitting an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build two new reactors at its South Texas nuclear site. This is the first full application for a new reactor in the U.S. in more than 30 years.

This project is emblematic of the failures of U.S. energy policy to effectively meet the needs of our nation. Nuclear power is a 20th century technology in a new world of climate crisis and a future that demands a distributed, sustainable approach to energy. Nuclear power requires massive taxpayer subsidies and yet still cannot compete environmentally with the sustainable energy technologies that will power our future. (more…)

By Jim Kouri, CPP/September 22, 2007
 
(This article is based on a report received by the National Association of Chiefs of Police.)
 
While the battle over providing illegal aliens with driver’s licenses rages in state capitals and Washington, D.C., North Carolina created the first “North American Union” driver’s license, complete with a hologram of the North American continent on the licenses.
 
The hologram is a facsimile of the map of North America that is used as the background for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America logo on the SPP website.
 
Marge Howell, spokeswoman for the North Carolina DMV, told the press that the state was embedding a hologram of North America on the back of their new driver’s licenses. “It’s a security element that eventually will be on the back of every driver’s license in North America,” Howell said.
 
Howell explained the hologram of the North American continent was the creation of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), a tax-exempt, nonprofit organization that, according to the group’s website, “develops model programs in motor vehicle administration, law enforcement and highway safety.”
 
Founded in 1933, AAMVA represents state and provincial officials in the United States and Canada who administer and enforce motor vehicle laws. The government of Mexico is also a member, though the individual Mexican states have yet to join.
 
According to the group’s website, AAMVA’s programs are designed “to encourage uniformity and reciprocity among the states and provinces.” (more…)

ARTHUR H. ROTSTEIN/AP/September 21, 2007

Tucson, Ariz. — Because of a software glitch, the first high-tech “virtual fence” on the nation’s borders remains inoperable, three months after its scheduled debut.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said he is withholding further payment to the prime contractor, Boeing Co., until the success of the pilot project stretching 28 miles near the border southwest of Tucson.

Nine 98-foot towers laden with radar, sensors and sophisticated cameras have been built in an area heavily trafficked by illegal immigrants and drug smugglers. The towers, each a few miles apart, are intended to deter or detect border crossers and enhance the ability of Border Patrol agents to catch them. (more…)

By Kari Lydersen/The Washington Post/September 22, 2007

The money spent on one day of the Iraq war could buy homes for almost 6,500 families or health care for 423,529 children, or could outfit 1.27 million homes with renewable electricity, according to the American Friends Service Committee, which displayed those statistics on large banners in cities nationwide Thursday and Friday.

The war is costing $720 million a day or $500,000 a minute, according to the group’s analysis of the work of Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard public finance lecturer Linda J. Bilmes. (more…)

http://www.cpa-iraq.org/regulations/#Orders

The Coalition Provisional Authority
Order 17
Section 2

Iraqi Legal Process

1) Unless provided otherwise herein, the MNF (*Multi National Force), the CPA (*all non-Iraqi civilian and military personnel assigned to, or under the direction or control of, the Administrator of the CPA), Foreign Liaison Missions, their Personnel, property, funds and assets, and all International Consultants shall be immune from Iraqi legal process.

2) All MNF, CPA and Foreign Liaison Mission Personnel and International Consultants shall respect the Iraqi laws relevant to those Personnel and Consultants in Iraq including the Regulations, Orders, Memoranda and Public Notices issued by the Administrator of the CPA.

3) All MNF, CPA and Foreign Liaison Mission Personnel, and International Consultants shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of their Sending States. They shall be immune from any form of arrest or detention other than by persons acting on behalf of their Sending States, except that nothing in this provision shall prohibit MNF Personnel from preventing acts of serious misconduct by the above-mentioned Personnel or Consultants, or otherwise temporarily detaining any such Personnel or Consultants who pose a risk of injury to themselves or others, pending expeditious turnover to the appropriate authorities of the Sending State. In all such circumstances, the appropriate senior representative of the detained person’s Sending State in Iraq shall be notified immediately.

4) The Sending States of MNF Personnel shall have the right to exercise within Iraq any criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the law of that Sending State over all persons subject to the military law of that Sending State.

5) The immunities set forth in this Section for Foreign Liaison Missions, their Personnel

*Editor’s addition