U.S. Postal Service: We Deliver? Please!

November 1, 2007
Mr. Bill Almaraz, Manager, Los Angeles District
Mr. James Smith, Postmaster, Los Angeles District
.

Gentlemen:

.

As I’m sure you know, I’ve work as a Consumer Advocate for over eight years now. During that time I have had occasion to contact you both on serious matters of customer neglect. Mr. Smith, you have generally returned polite responses and assured me that you were going to handle the matter. Mr. Almaraz, I’ve never received any response from you–not even an acknowledgment of receipt.
.

Over the years I’ve become increasingly disturbed over some of the hardships that our customer’s have been forced to endure–Cancer patients whose medication has been lost in the mail; elderly people who can’t eat because their Social Security checks are not being received; tenants who have had eviction proceedings initiated against them because their landlords didn’t receive their rent checks; and court documents being delayed or lost due to the improper handling of Certified mail, etc.
.

I’ve repeatedly brought these matters to the attention of you or various managers lower in the chain of command, but instead of putting your energies into addressing the problems with the mail, the agency seems to view me as the problem for bring them up.
Mr. Smith, on Wednesday October 31, 2007 I wrote you the following memo:
.

Mr. Smith,

.

Some of your supervisors don’t recognize the importance of good customer service, or following up on complaints. It’s not only making us look bad, but it’s going to generate congressional complaints. [Name withheld] and I watched one of them standing around talking while she was repeatedly being paged to the window to speak with a customer. She ignored the pages for 15 minutes, until the customer got tired of waiting and left. There’s very little I can do about that kind of irresponsibility, but I would like your permission to put the following notation on issues not being followed up on:
.

HOT SHEET

.

I have followed up on this matter by adding this complaint to the Postmaster’s Hot Sheet (on red paper to make the complaint immediately conspicuous). A copy has been attached to the carrier case, and I have either given a copy of this complaint directly to the unit supervisor or left a copy on the supervisor’s desk. A copy has also been emailed to the unit supervisor. In addition, I have requested that the customer contact me immediately if the problem should recur, in which case, the matter will be referred to the postmaster for further corrective action.
.

Thereafter, if the problem continues, I’d like to refer the matter to Beverly Young to act in your name, if she doesn’t mind. If we don’t do something, Waxman’s going to close this place down.

.

Wattree
.

Thereafter, all hell broke loose. I didn’t have a problem with that in itself, because as you know, I’ve never had a problem with speaking truth to power, but it did confirm my suspicion that the problems that we’re having with the mail goes much deeper than simple incompetence. It has become abundantly clear that the district is purposely allowing our customers to suffer in order to save money–and I’m not going to allow that to happen.

.

As I mentioned to you before, week after week I rant and rave in my column about how congress is sitting on its hands and allowing our country to go down the drain. Now, if I don’t take some kind of action about what this agency is doing to our customers, I’ll be doing the same thing–and I can’t be that kind of hypocrite. So I am respectfully requesting that you take the following actions to improve our customer service:
.

1) First of all, Supervisor [name withheld] disregard for our customers has been grossly unconscionable, and I’ve spoken to you about her before. In addition to the latest incident where she ignored the customer in the lobby, she consistently leaves between 12 and 17 routes vacant per day to be thrown up by hook or crook instead of putting them up for opt or calling in additional carriers to cover them. Some routes, along with their business mail, don’t leave the station until after 4:00 pm. This results in routes not being delivered, mis-deliveries, mail not being forwarded, and mail not being held, or delivered when the customer’s return from vacation. She’s been doing this for years, and it constitutes gross negligence and a severe hardship on our customers. This supervisor should be either put up for removal, or at the very least, demoted.

.

2). All routes that are open for over 5 business days should be put up for opt, or fully assigned to an employee. And no unit should have over four routes unassigned on any given day. That will ensure the proper processing of the mail.

.
3). All accountable mail (including Certified) should be listed and signed for individually. That will ensure proper handling and prevent the loss of important mail.
.

4) .All Certified mail should be listed and distributed on a daily basis, to prevent Certified mail from sitting around the station for two to three weeks.

.
5). All routes should have a list of all forwards and vacation holds attached to the case, and the lists should be reviewed, and the mail processed, before the route is pulled down for delivery on a daily basis.

.
6). No parcel or mail item should be left unprotect in the lobby of any apartment building. If the item can’t be delivered to the recipient or a responsible party (manager or security), a notice should be left, and the item returned to the station.
.

7). Every unit should hold a standup (with a signed roster) on the sanctity of the mail at least once a week.

.
8). The mishandling or negligent loss of mail should be a zero tolerance matter.
.

9). All unit supervisors should be available to address customer complaints for at least 2 hours per day in the afternoon.

.
10). There will be absolutely no reprisals against me for addressing these issues, and I will be made fully whole for the time I’ve lost as a result of the reprisals that have already taken place.
.

If we can agree on all of these issues, we can resolve this matter within the district. If not, I will continue up the chain of command, and if need be, to Congressman Waxman’s Committee on Government Reform. I’ve brought each one of these items to management’s attention previously, but to no avail.

.
Gentlemen, we owe our customers much more than we’re giving them, and it has become beyond embarrassing. I’m very sorry it had to come to this, but this seems to be the only way to get anyone’s attention.

------------------------------------ ------------------------
Bill Almaraz Date
District Manager


------------------------------------ -------------------------
James Smith Date
.

STATEMENT

December 19, 2007

.
On December 19, 2007, between 10:40 and 11:10 a.m., a customer called and said she hadn’t received any mail in two days. She said this was very unusual, and wanted to know if her mail was being held at the post office for some reason. She said she was willing to come pick it up. The customer lived in the 90036 zip code so I transferred the call to [Name withheld], the supervisor for that zip code, to answer the customer’s inquiry as to whether or not her mail was being held, and if so, the reason why. Then just a matter of seconds after I transferred the call, Ms. [withheld] paged me over the intercom. She had placed the customer on hold, and told me that the customer was looking for her mail, so she should not have been given the call. She said I should have gone over to the carrier’s route and searched for the customer’s mail.
.

I totally disagree with Ms. [Withheld]. If the customer’s mail was not being delivered, it might have been due to a problem at the delivery point–construction, a problem with gaining access to the mailbox, a stray dog, or some other hazard on the route. There could have also been some sort of regulatory problem that prevented the mail from being delivered, or something as simple as a substitute carrier bringing the mail back to the station because he was ordered not to work any overtime, or it got too dark for him to deliver the mail. And in some cases, when they’re short on personnel, they simply don’t send the mail out. Only the carrier, or the carrier’s supervisor can answer those kinds questions. And further, when the mail is not being delivered, it is the supervisor’s responsibility to know where it is located.

.
But unfortunately, the three latter reasons are exactly why Ms. [Withheld] avoided speaking with this particular customer, and she makes it a point not to speak with any other customer. She knows that the mail is being mis-managed under her supervision, and therefore, goes to great length to avoid speaking with the customer where she will have to take responsibility for her actions, or lack thereof.
.

Everyone, including all of the window clerks are familiar with this situation, and it has been reported to upper management on several occasions, to no avail. So, while I have no problem with serving our customers, I am both tired, and completely stressed out by constantly having to face their wrath due to Ms. [Withheld] disregard and irresponsibility.

.
Willie Wilson
Customer Advocate
.

October 24, 2008
Postmaster Anderson:
.

I wrote you on Monday, October 20, 2008, to advise you of a very serious matter that needed your immediate attention. My action was taken in what I considered to be the very best interest of the Postal Service. But as I write this memo, four days later, you have yet to acknowledge receipt.

.
I’ve considered the fact that you may not have responded because you consider me both arrogant and presumptuous for writing you in such a brutally candid manner regarding Manager Connie Brown. If that’s the case, I assure you that I can fully understand your rationale. But I hope you’ll understand that this situation is so long-standing and unconscionable in it’s impact on our customers that corporate decorum was the very last thing on my mind.
.

I first broached this matter with your predecessor, James Smith, on October 31st of last year, and while numerous auditors have been roaming the station with clipboards, absolutely nothing has changed. So my intent in contacting you was to try to convey the immediate need to address an agency-threatening matter, and a situation that is causing our customers to sustain needless hardships, in an aggressive and forthright manner.

.
I’ve monitored this situation closely over the past year, and instead of addressing the issue, I’ve watched it be carefully managed to subordinate the needs of our customers, and the postal service, to accommodate the bureaucratic sensibilities of various personalities within the agency. At first I thought the problem was inadvertent, but over the past year it’s become increasingly apparent that we’ve developed a corporate culture that’s giving careers and the personal needs of individuals priority over what’s in the best interest of the agency. The tail is wagging the dog. It seems that moving the mail is no longer our primary concern. It’s gotten to the point where moving the mail is looked upon as an unfortunate nuisance that’s interfering with management’s quality of life.
.

But when you came to the district, it was rumored that you were of a different breed, so I hoped that the situation would finally be addressed. Like many other employees who have become concerned over the postal service’s image, I was hoping that you would bring some integrity and a sense of mission-first back into the district, and it was with that thought in mind that I wrote you.

.
With respect to my attitude towards Connie Brown, I want to assure you that I have every respect for the effort that goes into obtaining a position of responsibility in this agency, but at the same time, I must also recognize that while the agency can confer titles and areas of responsibility, it cannot confer character, insight, integrity, or sense of mission. While there are those who take the position that one should respect the title and never bad-mouth one’s manager (generally held by managers), I don’t subscribe to that philosophy. I respect excellence, not titles, symbols, or any other accoutrement of authority. When an individual commands authority, they don’t need symbols to prove it. On the other hand, if an individual is irresponsible, all of the titles and symbols that man can confer won’t make them so. Our president is a prime example of that.
.

In closing, I’d like to request, once again, some kind of response from you. My request is not a matter of vanity, but an honest attempt to mitigate this matter at its lowest level.
.
Eric L. Wattree

.

Statement

My name is Eric L. Wattree. I’m an African American male, and I’ve worked for the postal service for 27 years. For eight of those years I worked as a customer advocate at both Palms and Bicentennial Stations, and also as a Consumer Affairs Specialist at the District office.

.

I worked with Ms. Lily Pamanian while a Customer Advocate at Bicentennial Station for one year, and at Palms Station for approximately two years, and during that time I have always considered her to be one of the most professional, efficient, and customer oriented supervisors with whom I have ever worked. What’s most immediately striking about Ms. Pamanian is her character. She lives by a very strong and unwavering moral code. Unfortunately, however, I’m virtually certain that it is that very quality that has led to her having to stand before you.
.

When I first became aware of the blatantly disparate action taken against Ms. Pamanian, I was literally astonished, and both embarrassed and angered at the level of disparity that’s being meted out upon her. I am personally privy to facts that will show that she’s being treated differently than either African American or Hispanic personnel under either similar, and far worse conditions.

.
As a customer advocate I have personal and direct knowledge of the postal service’s irresponsibly lackadaisical and laissez faire attitude towards what can only be considered the criminal malfeasance of at lest one African American manager, Ms. Connie Brown, and an Hispanic Area Manager, Ms. Marcie Luna. In fact, I have waged an ongoing battle against the postal service in that regard–and since I am also a journalist who has always been dedicated to the cause of government accountability, I just happen to have documentation of their customer abuse, which I’ve been compiling for a book.
.

Ms. Pamanian has been under the gun for years for no reason other than the fact that she’s culturally predisposed to going by the book and doing things properly, as opposed to hiding deliverable mail, underpaying employees who are gainfully employed, and "cooking the books" in order to enhance, or protect, the careers of her superiors. Unfortunately, those activities are an insidious and throughly pervasive part of the post office culture–they are expected as part of the job description of all managers and supervisors. As a direct result, instead of rewarding Ms. Pamanian for her integrity and the conscientious manner in which she carries out her assignment, she’s looked upon as different-- "uppity", and something less than a "team player."

.
In 2007 Bicentennial Station, under Manager Connie Brown (African American female), and Area Manager Marcie Luna (Hispanic female) was trying to save money by attempting to run the station with a skeleton crew. By trying to run the station with less than a full complement of clerks to process and distribute the mail, they failed to cover vacant routes when the regular carriers were either out sick, on their rotating day off, or on annual leave. This often led to up to seventeen (17) routes being unmanned in just one unit (the station has two units).
.

As a result of their failing to ensure a full complement of clerks, Certified mail wasn’t being individually listed and accounted for, leading to the loss of our customer’s valuable accountable mail (legal documents, rent payments, medical documents, etc.). In addition, accountable mail was also being delayed, customer box mail was being hidden instead of delivered to the customers’ p.o. boxes, and mail was being distributed to the carriers in an untimely manner, leading to many customers, including businesses, not receiving deliveries on a daily basis.

.
As a result of failing to cover delivery routes, routes were being thrown up in a haphazard manner and carried by personnel who were unfamiliar with the routes. That in turn, led to mail being both mis-cased and mis-delivered, and mail that should have been forwarded would be delivered to the old address, which were often vacant apartment buildings. That meant that the customer who had moved would never see that mail, because the mail would languish in boxes stuffed with mis-delivered mail for up to a year or more. Of course, part of the carriers’ job was to check those boxes and return that mail to the station, but management would have them so much under the gun to get back and save time, that it was rarely, if ever done.
.

But when carriers were forced to bring back mail because it was return directly to them by customers as mis-delivered or forwardable, it was never redirected to the proper address or forwarded on. It was simply thrown in a tub and set in the back of the station to be returned to sender as "Addressee Unknown"–and that mail was left in the station to languish, sometimes for up to a year (see attached pictures). I’ve seen, and took pictures, of medical x-rays for Cedar Sinai Hospital marked as "Address Unknown" to be returned to sender (How can they not find Cedar Sinai Hospital?!).

.
Of course, the customers were in an uproar over this, but when they would call or come to the station, the supervisors would refuse to come to the phone or go to the window, because they didn’t want the customers to have their name when they filed a formal complaint or wrote their congressman, so they’d send an employee to speak to the customer and take the brunt of the customers’ wrath.
.

Eventually the employees got tired of that, so at the beginning of 2008 one or two employees reported the situation to both Congressman Waxman’s office, and the Inspector General. Then on the morning of February 1, 2008, a team of postal officials arrived at the station at 4:00 a.m. in the morning. They found the mail, including about 14 feet of Certified mail that had been delayed up to six(6) weeks. They then did an audit of the station and Connie Brown got 16% out of a possible 100, and she failed several audits thereafter. She should have been fired, forthwith. But they still didn’t mete out the disciplinary action that they’ve taken against Ms. Pamanian.

.
And finally, Ms. Pamanian was awarded a bid to another area on December 23, 2006, so she shouldn’t have even been in this area when they took this unwarranted action against her. So it is clearly apparent that they deprived her of her right to assume a lawful bid for no other reason than to take this grossly unwarranted and discriminatory action against her.

.
Eric L. Wattree
Bicentennial Station
.
[President Supervisor's Union]
From the Presidents Desk
Damon Leopold

Los Angeles Has No Integrity

This has been the buzz around the Pacific Area since the new Pacific Area Vice President came aboard. Webster’s dictionary defines integrity as "possession of firm principles: the quality of possessing and steadfastly adhering to high moral principles or professional standards, honesty." Wow, if you are like me, you take this personally. All of the hard working EAS employees in Los Angeles are all dishonest and have no moral principles. Even David Stowe and his good ole boy network had the audacity to write in their Pacific Area reviews (audits) that the employees in Los Angeles would rather lie and cheat than to tell the truth. Where are they getting these outrageous claims? I thought long and hard to find an answer.
.
The answer to that question took me back to the early 1990’s. When I was a PTF carrier still on probation. I returned from the route after my ten hours was up and was informed by the clerk supervisor that I could not hit the clock because I was in penalty overtime and that the supervisor would take care of my time. Not knowing what penalty overtime was (and still on probation) I did not hit the clock. There was the defining moment on how Los Angeles operates. The leadership of the cluster had us all so brain washed that penalty overtime is wrong and if you use it, you will be disciplined. Isn’t penalty overtime part of the contract? Coming up through the ranks, I quickly learned that penalty overtime was a taboo. In Los Angeles, the carriers and the union were trained that we did not pay penalty overtime. After they had reached 56 hours in a week, they knew the supervisor would come up with an ingenious plan to pay you another day. This was just the culture in Los Angeles, that is, until the Long Beach consolidation.
.
When Long Beach merged with Los Angeles, came the tale of two cultures. We would daily sit on a tele-con for hours and listen while the Associate Offices had 1000’s of hours of penalty overtime and the city had zero. Were we that much better than the AO’s or was it something else to this picture? Later on we found that it was the latter of the two. The leadership in Los Angeles had breaded a culture of lying and deceit that would not come to light until after the Long Beach consolidation.
.
After some offices were investigated by the Office of the Inspector General for alleged clock ring manipulation, the penalty overtime in the city went up astronomically. Was this a mere coincidence or part of that lack of integrity on the part of the employee’s in Los Angeles? After countless EAS employee’s in the district were put up for removal for manipulating clock rings did our fearless leaders step up and draw the line in the sand. Do not mess with employee’s clock rings. Well my question is why is it a problem now? The leadership created this monster, but when the OIG comes in they claim no knowledge of what has been going on. How many times have you heard on a tele-con "I don’t want any penalty overtime this week." This is a clear violation of the contract, but where is the union at? It all boils down to my theory that the Union is aware and part of that culture that the leadership created. Think long and hard, when was the last time (prior to consolidation) did you have a grievance for penalty overtime? They were pretty much unheard of in the old Los Angeles.
.
In the beginning of this article I wrote that Los Angeles lost their integrity in the early 90’s, well that was some 15 plus years ago. It is going to take that long for us to regain that back. We have veteran mangers and supervisors that feel like PTF’s all over again. We are learning to do things the right and legal way. Who would have thought just a few years ago when we were the best in the country that one day our integrity would be questioned? Who knew that it was okay to pay an employee penalty overtime if in fact they had worked it? The only way we will regain our integrity is if the membership steps up and do the right things. The next time you are given an instruction from the leadership that is a clear violation of the contract, ELM, MOU etc. I urge each and every one of you to follow the instruction but insist that it is in writing. That one little piece of paper may just be the thing that will save your job when the overzealous OIG agent wants to investigate you about something illegal you did, following the instruction of the leadership. Always remember that once you lose your integrity to this organization, you have sold your soul to the devil.
.
In closing, I would like to thank each of you for allowing me to serve as your president for a second term. During my term as president, I have increased the membership of the branch and doubled the number of members that attend the branch meetings. But, we are still a long ways away from where we need to be as a branch. I urge all of you to attend the branch meetings and become active in the organization. There is strength in numbers. United we stand and divided we fall.
.
Solidarity,
Damon Leopold
.
Well, that’s your United States Postal Service, folks–an organization that makes the Bush administration look like a sterling example of efficiency, integrity, and concern.

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com

A moderate is one who embraces truth over ideology, and reason over conflict.

Sphere: Related Content

The Chart

The Chart

Things have been kinda heavy around here for awhile, so I thought I'd lighten up a bit and speak of beauty for a change, instead of political fraud and murderous corruption. Sometimes we need a break from those kind of things.

With that in mind, while sitting around idle, I thought I'd do something constructive for a community of people that has made my life a pure joy--musicians. So I've put together a chord chart that serves as the foundational basis for ALL music. Once you've gotten the knowledge herein under your fingers, you're a musician, pure and simple--or if you're already a musician, it'll make you a better one.

The chart lays out all of the basic chords in music chromatically. In addition, at the very bottom there's a key signature chart that goes through the cycle of fifths from left to right, and the cycle of fourths from right to left. It also lays out the sharps or flats in every key. If you're studying the cycle of fifths, find the key you're looking for, then the row beneath it relates all of the sharps or flats related to that key from left to right. The cycle of fourths simply reverses the process going from right to left.

If this modest effort contributes to the development of just one more technically competent musician in this world, it will have more than served its purpose.

This time and effort is dedicated to the memory of Dexter Gordon--both a towering musician, and man--whose powerful tenor saxophone soared mightily over the musical theme that has defined my life:


A Swingin' Affair

I
Was told as a child
Blacks had no worth,
Not a nickel’s worth of dimes.
I believed that myth
‘Til Dex rode in
With his ax
In double time.

His
Horn was soarin’,
The changes flyin’,
His rhythm right on time;
My heart
Beat with the pleasure
Of new found pride,
Knowing,
His blood
Flowed through mine.

Dex
Took the chords
The keyboard played,
And danced around each note;
Then shuffled ‘em
Like a deck of cards,
And didn’t miss a stroke.

B minor 7 with flatted 5th,
A half diminished chord,
He substituted a lick in D,
Then really began to soar.

He tipped his hat
To Charlie Parker,
And quoted
Trane with Miles,
Then paid his homage to
Thelonious Monk,
In Charlie Rouse's style.

He took
A Scrapple From The Apple,
Then went to Billie’s Bounce,
The rhythm section, now on fire,
But he didn’t budge an ounce.

He just
Dug right in
To shuffle again,
This time
A Royal Flush,
Then lingered a bit
Behind the beat,
Still smokin’
But in no rush.

Then he
Doubled the time
Just like this rhyme,
In fluid 16th notes,
tellin’
Charlie and Lester,
"your baby boy, Dexter’s,
On top of the
Bebop you wrote.@

Wailin’
Like a banshee,
This prince of saxophone,
His ballads dripped of honey,
His Arpeggios were strong.

Callin’ on his idles,
Ghost of Pres’
Within in the isles,
Smiling at his protege,
At the peak of this new style.

His tenor
Drenched of Blackness,
And all the things we are--
Of pain, and pleasure,
And creative greatness
Until his final bar.

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com
A moderate is one who embraces truth over ideology, and reason over conflict.

Sphere: Related Content

How Loyal is the Loyal Opposition?

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE How Loyal is the Loyal Opposition? From this point on I pledge to stop using the terms "conservative" and "Republican" interchangeably. I'm beginning to realize there's a big difference between the two. Conservatives are loyal and well-meaning Americans of good faith who just happen not to share my opinion of what's in the best interest of America. On the other hand, it has become clear that the Republican Party has crossed the line between the loyal opposition, and subversion. Am I indulging in radical hyperbole? I don't think so. The American Heritage Dictionary defines subversive as "Intended or serving to subvert, especially intended to overthrow or undermine an established government" (emphasis added). While I don't mean to imply that the GOP is involved in a plot to overthrow our government–at least, not at this point--it is certainly clear that they are deeply involved in a conspiracy to undermine it. Forces within the GOP like Rush Limbaugh and Tom Delay have literally stated that they want President Obama to fail in his attempt to rescue America from our current economic crisis. One can sugarcoat that anyway that one likes, but the bottom line is, if President Obama fails, the American people are going to suffer greatly. So what these GOP leaders are actually saying is that they're hoping for additional, and severe hardship, to be visited upon the American people. And considering the fact that America is in the throes of a nation-threatening economic crisis (due to a very large extent to GOP governance), I'd say they've crossed the line, from simple irresponsibility, to what could literally be considered subversive. One might argue that I'm dealing in semantics if it were not for the fact that the GOP has taken its intent beyond mere words to blatant, and clearly defined obstructionism. They're using every legislative device at their command to sabotage the president's rescue plan. While they claim that their concern is about "pork barrel" spending, their claim is transparently disingenuous. First, the amount of spending that the GOP is jumping up and down about is less than 1% of the rescue plan. So in essence, they're taking the position that one should allow a baby to starve to death because the local market is charging two pennies more for baby food than the store across town. Their rationale? It's a matter of principle. Oh, really? The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that making President Bush's tax cuts to the rich permanent, as virtually every Republican wanted to do, "Without offsets, making the tax cuts permanent would increase the deficit and thereby add to the national debt. The interest payments [alone] needed to service this higher level of debt would amount to about $700 billion over the next ten years. Thus, the total cost of making these tax cuts permanent, including the related interest costs, would be $4.4 trillion over the ten-year period" (emphasis added). In addition, much of the pork in the rescue plan was placed in the stimulus package during the Republican watch, before President Obama even took the oath of office. And beyond that, many of the very Republicans who are complaining, are some of the most excessive spenders. Republican minority leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell complains, for example, that the rescue plan spends more "than the previous administration spent in seven years on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Hurricane Katrina combined." But he fails to point out that he's responsible for more than $75 million of the pork that he's complaining about. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, McConnell is responsible for a $950,000 earmark to fund a bikeway for a Western Kentucky University, and $2.9 million to purchase buses for LexTran, and $1.6 million for a forage animal research laboratory. And for a politician who's so concerned about leaving debt on the backs of our children, it didn't seem to bother him when he landed on CREW's 20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress List for, according to CREW, "accepted donations to his campaign and political action committees in direct exchange for earmarking federal funds to clients of Bates Capitol," a lobbying firm owned by McConnell's former chief of staff, Gordon Hunter Bates. And now we have Republican governors threatening to refuse the stimulus money. Governors Rick Perry (Tex), Mark Sanford (SC), Bobby Jindal (LA), C.L. "Butch" Otter (ID), and of course, Sarah Palin (AL)--all Republican, and all having presidential ambitions, thus, they all have a vested interest in President Obama's failure, and more than willing to let their people suffer to bring about that end. That in itself should demonstrate how we ended up in our current fix. Now just ask yourself–do you think that President Obama would allow people to starve, election or not, or under any circumstances? Of course not–that's the difference between a statesman and demagogues. Even Ray Charles could see through the motives of these people–and as we all know, Ray's both blind, and deceased. When was the last time anyone ever heard of any governor telling the federal government that they didn't want more money? You show me a Republican who turns down money, and I'll show you some kind of conspiracy. Thus, all of these Republican governors are willing to starve the people of their state for personal gain. In the middle of the worse--not just a national, but world--economic crisis of the last eighty years, they're telling the federal government, "No, I don't want you to help the people of my state. Let their unemployment lapse. We have food in the governor's mansion, and I'm sure the people will survive–somehow. " In essence, "Let them eat cake." Those are not conservatives. They're self-serving, ruthless, and quite literally, anarchists. The American Heritage Dictionary defines Anarchism as, "The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished"-- or as neo-con, Grover Norquist said, "small enough to drown in a bathtub." No, these are not conservatives, and when we as progressives paint conservatives with the same broad brush as we do people who are blatantly un-American, we do both the nation, and ourselves a gross disservice. We play right into the hands of these demagogues, because their very survival depend on keeping the nation divided. They've prospered for years by keeping us racially divided, but that didn't work in the last election, so now they're desperate–and angry. So it's on to plan B–"By any means necessary." What has kept America a strong and viable nation over the years is that in times of crisis we've managed to come together--not as Black or white, Jew or Gentile, liberal or conservative-- but as Americans, and that's the way we've got to address this crisis. These demagogues have a philosophy–"Never let any crisis go to waste." What they mean by that is never miss an opportunity to manipulate the people. But we should take that philosophy and turn it on its head to mean, never allow the hardship of a crisis to go for naught, without making us a more insightful, steadfast, and unified America. We've got to recognize that our inherent diversity is our strength. It makes us more, rather than less. Just as we need the progressive voices of Martin Luther King, Caesar Chavez, and Malcolm X to make us a more just and compassionate nation, we also need the conservative voices of a Gen. MacArthur and Colin Powell to make us strong. It's called balance. But what we don't need are divisive voices like Rush Limbaugh's. What he represents is called, self-destruction. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com A moderate is one who embraces truth over ideology, and reason over conflict.   

Sphere: Related Content

Flight Suit George

Flight Suit George

The revisionists are out in force in an attempt to rewrite history regarding the rein of George W. Bush as president of the United States. But fortunately, the internet is brutally tenacious in recording how the vast majority of Americans really feel about this eminently corrupt and incompetent abomination of American governance. So let us set the record straight--not for vengeance, but for posterity:

Oh,
Sweet patriot, square of jaw, and demeanor of great command, you fearlessly stand in defense of America, and the savior of all God’s chosen men. Anointed by God as his personal envoy to all men, corrupt and blind, and charged with the swift and brutal destruction of heathens of other kind.

You stand vigilant against all our enemies, both foreign and imagined within; you vigorously guard against all that is evil, and all that you see as sin. You define God’s needs and precious values, in the most unambiguous tones, and never once have you erred on behalf of truth, to reveal “God’s values” as indeed your own.

You lead our troops in fearless glory, challenging Death to “Bring it on!” Never thrusting your sword on the field of battle, fearlessly leading the charge by phone.

Oh,
Sweet patriot, square of jaw, and demeanor of great command, how selfless your will to guard America . . .

While hating the pillars upon which it stands.

Eric L. Wattree, Sr.
Wattree.blogspot.com

Sphere: Related Content

ANTOINETTE

ANTOINETTE

She walks alone, sweet woman-child,
her sobs flow warm against the dark;
Her need is love, not merely passion,
a mighty fortress, her broken heart.

Quivering bodies, and breathless moans,
she remembers with great delight,
but the heat of love is the only flame,
her lusting soul craves late at night.

Hungry arms yearn for her shuddering body,
to embrace her tenderly with all their might,
shivering lips lust for her succulent passion,
as she cries out desperately into the night;
But only true love can quench the thirst
that burns red hot inside,
so she faces the pain, again and again,
and late at night she cries.

Masculine shadows of delusion and lust
caress their egos more than her pain,
for her convulsing body quivers
not for them, but for the fantasy
of a gentle and earnest man.

Thus, head held high, by light of day,
yet, mournful eyes, that do betray,
unspent love, a breaking heart,
and the fear of sobs, when day turns dark.

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com

Sphere: Related Content

These are the People that Limbaugh and the GOP Represent

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Sorry Mr. President, but We’ve Turned too Many Pages Already

President Obama has suggested that we “turn the page” on Republican misdeeds and move the nation forward. The president is a good natured sort, but there is such a thing as being forgiving to a fault, and I think we’ve long since reached that point with the Republican Party. The GOP reminds me of a woman who's been caught committing adultery, then when her husband confronts her with it the next morning, she becomes incensed and tells him that he's going to destroy their marriage if he doesn't learn to stop dwelling in the past.

It’s time for America to take a long, hard, and objective look at the Republican Party. The American people have been played for fools long enough by these people. Once we begin to take a serious look at the GOP an unmistakable pattern is going to emerge. We’re going to notice the same arguments being put forth by the same names, who are engaging in the very same practices, leading to the same kind of corruption being recycled every generation.

On October 29, 1929 the Republican Party ushered in the Great Depression under President Herbert Hoover, and it took Democratic president, Franklin Roosevelt, to bail the nation out.

Then on October 19, 1987, under Republican, Ronald Reagan, the stock market fell 508 points due to the excesses of Reaganomics. Then after that, due to the continued freewheeling fiscal policies of conservative Republicans, between 1986 and 1989, spanning the presidencies of Reagan and Bush Sr., the FSLIC had to pay off all the depositors of 296 institutions at a cost of over $125 billion.

Then in 1988 Silverado Savings and Loan collapsed, costing the taxpayers $1.3 billion. It was headed by Neil Bush, brother of George W. The investigation alleged that he was guilty of "breaches of his fiduciary duties involving multiple conflicts of interest." The issue was eventually settled out of court with Bush paying a mere $50,000 settlement.

Then there was the Lincoln Savings and loan scandal in 1987, involving John McCain. The scandal was very similar to the one that is currently playing out on Wall Street. He was one of a group of senators dubbed "The Keating Five" involved in a scandal by the same name.

In 1976 Charles Keating moved to Arizona to run the American Continental Corporation. In 1984, shortly after the Reagan era push to deregulate the savings and loan community, Keating bought Lincoln Savings and Loan and began to engage in highly risky investments with the depositors' savings. In 1989 the parent company, which Keating headed, went bankrupt, and it resulted in over 21,000 investors losing their life savings. Most of the investors were elderly, and the loss amounted to about 285 million dollars.

After having received over a million dollars from Keating in illegal campaign contributions, gifts, free trips, and other gratuities, the Keating Five--Senators John Glenn, Don Riegle, Dennis DeConini, Alan Cranston, and Sen. John McCain--attempted to intervene in the investigation into Keating's activities by the regulators. Later, they were admonished to varying degrees by the senate for attempting to influence regulators on Keating's behalf.

Charles Keating ended up being convicted for fraud, racketeering and conspiracy, for which he received 10 years by the state court, and a 12 year sentence in federal court. After spending four and a half years in prison, his convictions were overturned. But prior to being retried, he pled guilty to a number of felonies in return for a sentence of time served.

So fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. But if we allow them to continue to fool us every generation with impunity, we’re damn fools. We need to hang these people out to dry, or mark my words, they'll be back feeding from the frough in another ten years--convincing yet a new generation of Americans that they're socialists if they don't hand over their money to the “rich and deserving.”

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com

Sphere: Related Content

The GOP: A 'Rush' to Obscurity

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE The GOP: A 'Rush' to Obscurity Those of us who pointed out that Michael Steele was elevated to Chairman of the Republican National Committee as both a token, and as attack-dog-in-chief against President Obama should feel completely vindicated. No further evidence need be presented than what recently took place when Mr. Steele had the audacity to say that he was the head of the Republican Party, not Rush Limbaugh. In response Limbaugh all but literally told him to stay in his place. Limbaugh said, "Yes, said Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, I'm incendiary, and yes, it's ugly. Michael Steele, you are head of the RNC. You are not head of the Republican Party." Limbaugh went on to say, "Tens of millions of conservatives and Republicans have nothing to do with the RNC and right now they want nothing to do with it, and when you call them, asking them for money, they hang up on you." Then after being verbally pummeled by Limbaugh, Steele responds by groveling. During an interview Steele said, "My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh." He then added, "I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. … There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership." Sound familiar? It should–it's a dialogue right out of the 19th Century, and that's exactly where the Republican Party wants to keep America. They have absolutely no respect for Michael Steele, and why should they? He's allowed himself to be used. In my article, "Republicans: Look y'all We Got Us One Two," I point out the following: "Most Black people have very little use for Black conservatives. It's not that we disagree with everything they say, but because we're suspect of the reasons they're saying it.Without exception, every Black conservative I've come across is an opportunist. Their conservatism tends not to be so much grounded in their actual philosophy as it is an opportunity to gain exposure. They realize that conservatives are looking high and low for Black people who will step forward to validate their views towards the Black community. So they gleefully allow themselves to be used in return for personal wealth, position, and notoriety." Well, they got him–and good riddance. This time the Republican strategy threatens to backfire. They were so concerned about finding a Black face to put up against President Obama that they didn't take qualifications or simple common sense into account, and it's becoming increasingly apparent that Mr. Steele has neither. In addition, based on an investigation into allegations that he funneled campaign funds into his sister's non-existent company, character has also become an issue. While they can't say they weren't warned, actually, he fits right in with the rest of that Republican crowd. The problem with the Republican Party is that they've become victims of their own corruption, greed, and sense of entitlement. They feel that they have a God-given right to power, and the American people have a moral obligation to give it to them. As a result, they feel no need to earn the right to govern through competence and integrity. So instead of putting competent people of good character in positions of responsibility, they appoint through cronyism, and in response to short-term goals. It is that mindset that led to George W. Bush, Michael Steele, the disaster in Iraq, the Katrina catastrophe, our current economic crisis, and why America has to be rescued after every Republican administration. Think about it. The last Republican administration that didn't cause some kind of crisis in America was the Eisenhower administration–and his very last act was to warn us about people like Bush and Cheney. You see, Ike understood the Republican mindset, and he also understood, and told us in no uncertain terms, that they constituted a serious threat to America. What the Republican Party failed to realize was that the American people didn't elect President Obama because he's Black, they elected him because he's competent, and obviously a statesman of exceptional character, but they just didn't get it. They figured he was elected because Black was the flavor of the season, so they went out and "got them one"--without regard to character, intelligence, or common sense. But Black comes in many shades of competence just like any other group, so they got the color right, but they came up a little short on brain cells. After all, any man who thinks he's going to bring the hip hop community under the Republican tent is not only out of touch with the world around him, but must also be bordering on psychotic. Most hip hop people hate everything the GOP stands for, and vice versa. When Michele Bachmann told Steele, "You be DA man," it came off as so contrived that it was offensively condescending. He was even embarrassed–and that had to take a lot. But Michael Steele is not an anomaly. Reckless appointments and governance is a way of life with Republicans. Another example is Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, executive director of the C.I.A. under George W. Bush between 2004 to 2006 who was just sentenced to 37 months in prison for defrauding the government. The New York times reported that Mr. Foggo used his position, which included directing the CIA's administrative operations and budget, to steer sensitive clandestine contracts to military contractor Brent R. Wilkes, a San Diego businessman and close childhood friend. In return Wilkes "took Mr. Foggo on expensive vacations, paid for his meals at exclusive restaurants and offered him a job after he retired." Under a plea agreement Foggo pled guilty to one count of wire fraud, for which he could be sentenced to no more than the 37 months in prison, which he received. The Bush administration knew he had a shady background when Mr. Foggo was appointed. CIA Director Porter Goss appointed Foggo to an executive position in the CIA even though they knew that he had a reputation for having affairs with the wives of his colleagues, and allegedly shared a woman with Felix Bloch, a Russian spy. Yet, they appointed this man to the third highest position in the CIA, during a time of war! We didn't here a word from Rush about that, but now these very same Republicans want us to believe that they want President Obama to fail--and are doing everything in their power to bring that about--because they love America. Anyone who believes that is a fool. The fact is, after what they've done to this country, only a lack of character would allow then to look us in the face. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com A moderate is one who embraces truth over ideology, and reason over conflict.

Sphere: Related Content

A Reader’s Response to "The Assassination Cartoon"

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE A Reader's Response to "The Assassination Cartoon" The NY Post overstepped any excusable boundary of journalistic propriety with this editorial cartoon. It is overtly offensive to such a degree that I would have probably accepted an apology from their corporate board alongside an excuse that it was unaware that the paper's editorial management were reprobate racists, and that the publishing of this cartoon had been the cause of their termination of employment at the paper. Instead the NY Post's asinine unapologetic rationalisation for the cartoon would be comical under different circumstances. "Oh hey, we're not racists, we're derelict journalists without an 'effing clue about reality in America" Still, I disagree with an underlying assumption in your post, and would ask you to contemplate why I believe it is not only false; it is also counter-productive in working towards a society that does not make assumptions about humans, based solely upon easily discerned external differences; a goal I believe both of us share. This is not an artifact of true conservatism. "Radical Conservative" is an oxymoron. You made a distinction between neocons and radical conservatives. It would be better to further divide the political right into a more truthful classification. I grew up in Las Vegas in a very politically conservative family. When I was young, Vegas bore the shameful nickname: "Mississippi of The West", and was a very segregated city. In 1964, both of my parents became registrars of voters, and went to the other side of the tracks into the Black neighborhoods to register voters there, stating loudly that the disenfranchised Black population in The Nation was not only Un-American, it was an obscenity to anyone who believed they belonged in The Party of Lincoln. My parents had also supported Vegas headline stars, led by Sinatra, when they threatened to boycott the showrooms unless the Hotel/Casinos welcomed all visitors without regard for the color of their skin, and backed the local musicians who pressed for inclusion of Blacks in the Musicians' Union and in showroom orchestras. Back then, at least in Las Vegas, the integration debate wasn't divided on party lines. It is also worth remembering that it was the Warren Supreme Court that unanimously decided Brown v Board of Education, and Chief Justice Earl Warren was Eisenhower's appointee. It was President Eisenhower that sent the National Guard into the South to enforce Brown. The truth is that no Real Conservative, nor Old School Republican is racist. This is not the same as saying that some of the policies that were borne from a Conservative political world view does not aid in perpetuating racism though, and there are many places where Conservatism deserves to be harshly criticised. When Nixon played the Southern strategy in 1968, the GOP decided to turn away from principles seeking electoral wins instead, and welcomed into their midst the racists, and right-wing extremists. The Neocons turned away from their conception by former Trotskyists hard right, when President Carter had the temerity to stand up and say that Palestinians, whose homes were adjacent to centuries' old cemeteries in which their ancestors had been buried, had a natural right to live free upon that land. The Republican Party's embrace of the New Right, The Religious Right and the Neocons runs against the grain of true conservative thought, which posits at its very foundation axioms that a proper government is the smallest one necessary to insure the Nation's Defense and domestic tranquility; that a state has no business interfering into the private matters of its citizenry, as long as their public actions do not violate the liberties of other humans. Over the past four decades, what is defined as being conservative has been drastically changed, and has now become nothing more than a synonym for all things that are mapped to the right-side of a linear political model. This has aided in the polarisation of America, and turned politics into an either/or distortion of reality. Scalia and Thomas are not conservative jurists, they are right-wing activist judges who actively seek to radically change precedence settled a long time ago. Conservatives do not believe in radical change; they believe in a steady-state status quo. Radical change, be it to the right or the left is antithetical to true conservative theory. American Conservatism is presently facing a dilemma, and many conservatives are doing some deep soul-searching about where contemporary conservatism has gone wrong. Many are very unhappy about the manner their political ideology has been jacked by the radicals who hide their true being under conservatism's mantle. They want to separate themselves from it. The best course of action is to give Real Conservatives some breathing room; to help them differentiate themselves from the racists, the theocrats, the warmongers, the pro-torturers, the thieves of human rights. If they are forced into a corner, grouped together with all of the right-side, then forced to choose between that or the left, they will have no other option than to remain on the right. There are people with whom we disagree with politically, and there are also people who are enemies of freedom and justice for all. It's a propitious time to separate the wheat from the chaff here. Choose your targets wisely. My Reponse: I fully agree with every point you made, to the comma. Your criticism is right on the money and very well stated (in fact, so much so that I'm going to take this comment and send it to everyone in the "Progressive Network" who regularly receive my column. I also intend to post it on "Your Black World," along with this response). It was remiss of me not to make it clear that I didn't intend to paint ALL conservatives with the same broad brush. You are also correct that the phrase "radical conservative" can be construed as being oxymoronical when applied in a political context. I should have used the phrase "reactionary conservatives." That would have been much more specific in pointing out those in which I was referring. But I was using the term "radical" with respect to the American Heritage Dictionary definition, "Departing markedly from the usual or customary." While that should have covered the point that you are making in your response, the fact that I was sufficiently unclear to motivate your need to respond, clearly demonstrates a failure on my part. As Ms. Emmel, my old English teacher, used to constantly tell me, the point of writing is to communicate. If you fail to do that effectively, the entire exercise is meaningless. Therefore, I want to thank you for bringing this issue to my attention, and relating the shortcoming on my behalf with such civility and eloquence. You've taught me something that I'll never forget--to never assume that the reader understands what's going on in my mind. If it is my intent to communicate effectively, I have a responsibility to avoid intellectual shorthand. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com A moderate is one who embraces truth over ideology, and reason over conflict.

Sphere: Related Content

"Ya Want Me to Beat 'em for ya, Massa?"

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

The Assassination Cartoon

I’m all for freedom of speech, but there are limits. Along with freedom comes responsibility, and the New York Post demonstrated the complete absence of responsibility with the publication of their cartoon depicting the assassination of the President of the United States.

While freedom of speech and expression are indeed a cornerstone of American democracy, it is against the law to shout “fire” in a crowded theater–and with good reason. It is necessary for a free society to protect itself from those who don’t have the common sense to recognize that what they consider funny, or a practical joke, can get people killed. Thus, even in a free society it is sometimes necessary to jail a free citizen for behavior that amounts to criminal stupidity. While I’m not an attorney, I think they call it criminal negligence.

That is exactly the rationale that should be used to prosecute, and jail, all those responsible for the publication of this criminally ill-considered cartoon. Most of the criticism that’s being lodged against this cartoon seems to have more to do with its incredibly poor taste. But it’s one thing to be petulant, immature, and bigoted–we expect that from ultra-conservative extremists. But when you begin to advocate the assassination of the President of the United States, you’ve crossed the line–a line that separates merely stupid, from that which is criminal.

That cartoon literally sent a message out to every deadbeat, bigoted loser in the country that they can finally make something of themselves. They can finally find purpose in their previously miserable and lackluster lives by assassinating the President of the United States. Thus, what the New York Post is calling a meaningless joke is actually a clarion call to every bigoted fool in the United States. It says that there are people in this country who will consider you a hero, if you bring violence against the president–and they know it. Can you imagine the hue and cry coming from Republicans if the New York Times had run a cartoon depicting the assassination of Ronald Reagan?

The mere thought of perpetrating violence against the President of the United States shouldn’t even be a part of the public discourse. It serves to desensitize the public to a possibility that should be unthinkable in a civilized society. But history has clearly demonstrated that one of the most lethal weapons in the conservative arsenal is subliminal suggestion--along with suggestions that aren’t so subliminal--such as, liberals are aligned with drug dealers, criminals, and welfare cheats; Obama sympathizes with people who hate America and “pals around with terrorists;” and anyone who is against spying on American citizens, torture, or the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people is un-American. Now we have this, and they’re complaining, “What’s all the uproar about? It was just an innocent joke.”

We’ve had enough experience with neo-cons and radical conservatives where anyone with even an ounce of common sense recognizes that nothing is a joke with them–especially when they’re out of power. They’re dead serious, and they’re desperate. Conservative Republicans know better than anyone that considering their atrocious eight years of governance, combined with President Obama’s competence and responsible statesmanship, that the Republican Party faces an extremely bleak future. So they’ve gone to plan B, to eliminate Obama at all cost, and by any means necessary. As ugly as it seems, anyone who doesn’t recognize that reality has blinders on.

Look at the facts. Their proven method of operation is to demonize, dehumanize, then eliminate. When the neo-cons decided to exploit Iraqi resources instead of going after Osama, as was the intent of the American people, they first began to demonize, then dehumanize Saddam Hussein–a former ally--in order to prepare the American people to accept the idea that it was necessary to take him out.

Now look at what the conservatives are doing with respect to President Obama. First, they portray him as a monkey, then they have two police officers (respected members of the community) killing him, with a captions suggesting that it was justified based on his political activity. Then here comes Allen Keyes slithering from under his rock, saying that “Obama is a radical communist,” and that “He’s going to destroy this country.” He then went on to say, “We’re either going to stop him, or the United States of America is going to cease to exist.”

Again, it’s a blatant attempt to call all fools to arms. His malevolent intent couldn’t be more evident. He’s effectively given every fool in America carte blanche, indicating that “stopping” President Obama would be an honorable and patriotic act.

The American people simply can’t tolerate what’s going on here. It’s time to send these lunatics a clear message that we’re not having it. This is not a third world country, and we’re not going to allow them to turn it into one. So at the very least, we’ve got to insist that the people responsible for creating, and allowing that cartoon to be published, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Let them explain the humor of the cartoon to a jury.

In addition, congress should introduce legislation clearly outlining what constitutions criminal negligence in exercising our freedom of speech. We already have a precedent for it–while I do have freedom of speech, I can neither incite a riot, nor advocate the killing of my neighbor with impunity, so I’m amazed that we don’t have something on the books about advocating the assassination of the president.

But of course, the New York Post’s defense will be, “What’s the big deal? We didn’t mean it that way at all. The liberals are just overreacting.” But presumably, there’ll be a few older people on the jurywith that quaint, but pointed wisdom that we tend to be losing in this nation. They aren’t as caught up in technicalities as we are, and they have an adage regarding such nonsense. They’ll say, “You’re peeing on my head and trying to tell me it’s raining.”

So I’m confident that they’ll send a message to both the New York Post, and the world of conservative anarchists in general. They’ll make it clear that we don’t find jokes about the assassination of our president the least bit funny. Then they’ll make them pay, dearly.

Sphere: Related Content

The Republican Leadership–They Just Don’t Get it

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

The Republican Leadership–They Just Don't Get it

It is completely unconscionable how far the Republican leadership has strayed from anything resembling responsible governance. While they thrive on their claim of patriotism, their petulant obstructionism during one of the most serious financial crises in American history betrays a total disregard for this nation, and an absolute disdain for the American people. Their childish behavior is nothing short of political malfeasance.

But true to form, they claim that their attempt to sabotage President Obama's rescue program is for America's own good. They claim that they're concerned about reckless spending, and the huge debt that the president's initiative is going to leave our children. But that claim is disingenuous on it's face. Where was that concern when they literally threw away a trillion dollars, off budget, in Iraq–a meaningless war that only served to enrich Republican cronies, and has caused so much wear and tear on the U.S. Military, that it's going to cost us an additional trillion in order for the nation to recover.

And where was Republican fiscal responsibility when they committed to building an embassy in Iraq that's rivaled only by the Vatican in terms of size and opulence? The embassy that was originally budgeted to cost 592 million to build is now estimated to cost $736 million at last count, due to the shoddy workmanship of the Asian labor force imported to do the work--Bush spent all of that money and the fire suppression systems didn't even work. It is by far the largest embassy in the world, built on 104 acres of land, and it has been estimated that it is going to cost a billion dollars a year to maintain.

The Republican Party's fiscal responsibility also seemed to be missing in action when, according to a Washington Post article, the Defense Department's inspector general says that the Pentagon "cannot account for almost $15 billion worth of goods and services ranging from trucks, bottled water and mattresses to rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns that were bought from contractors in the Iraq reconstruction effort." And the article goes on to indicate that "The Pentagon did not have the proper documentation, including receipts, vouchers, signatures, invoices or other paperwork, for $7.8 billion that American and Iraqi contractors were paid for phones, folders, paint, blankets, Nissan trucks, laundry services and other items." The article also points out that "the inspector general found deficiencies in accounting for $5.2 billion of U.S. Payments to buy weapons, trucks, generators and other equipment for Iraq's security forces. In addition, the Defense Department spent $1.8 billion of seized Iraqi assets with "absolutely no accountability."

But now that it comes to rescuing the American people, the Republican Party has all of a sudden found Jesus. And just as suddenly, now that they're in the minority, they also see a moral imperative for bipartisanship. This, from the party that forced Democratic lawmakers to meet in the basement when Republicans were in the majority.

Now that they're in the minority, they seem to be fully embracing Rush Limbaugh's position that "There is no bipartisanship in President Obama's plan. President Obama's definition of bipartisanship is when Republicans cave and agree with his plan so he can then claim it's bipartisan." Limbaugh goes on to say;

"Mine is a genuine compromise. So let's look at how the vote came out, shall we? Fifty-three percent of voters in this country -- we'll say, for the sake of this proposal, 53% of Americans -- voted for Obama. Forty-six percent voted for Senator McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Let's give the remaining 1% to President Obama, so let's say that 54% voted for President Obama and 46% voted for Senator McCain. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009, $540 billion of the one trillion will be spent on infrastructure as defined by President Obama and the Democrats. The remaining $460 billion, or 46% that voted for Senator McCain, will be directed towards tax cuts, as determined by me."

Someone needs to point out to Limbaugh and the Republican leadership that their newly embraced idea of bipartisan governing is un-American. They're proposing another form of government–a coalition government--and that's not how we do things in the United States. If we did govern in that manner, however, Al Gore would have controlled the government after the 2000 election. After all, he did win the majority of the votes.

As usual, Limbaugh's retreaded, Republican answer for everything is tax cuts for the rich. But we've been down that road before, several times, and it's always been a disaster. Why should we give the very same people who recklessly wasted the initial bailout money even more tax cuts?

The fact is, this Republican plan, as all Republican plans, is nothing more than yet another attempt to undo the New Deal. The Republican Party's only reason for being for the past seventy years has been to reverse the provisions of President Franklin Roosevelt's landmark legislation that literally rescued Americans from having to sell apples on the street to survive. But the New Deal is much too popular to be successfully attacked legislatively, so the neo-cons decided to use this farce of a war in Iraq to both rob the American people of the means to fund the programs created by the New Deal, and at the same time, enrich themselves beyond measure. But their greedfest got out of hand, as it always does (see Ronald Reagan disaster), which led directly to our current condition.

The Republican stimulus plan is ridiculous on it's face. In short, it's a scam. Fact: No one is going to create jobs until the average American has enough money to purchase what is produced. It is that fact has always made Republicans miserable failures in managing the economy, going all the way back to the Great Depression.

So why should we listen to Republicans? Why should President Obama even consider allowing people who lost their own child for child abuse to become foster parents? If it was up to me, I'd relegate them to the basement. That's the only good idea they've had in seventy years.

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com

A moderate is one who embraces truth over ideology, and reason over conflict.

Sphere: Related Content

The Republican Rape of America

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

The Republican Rape of America

The Republican leadership and their corporate cronies have systematically brutalized and raped America. Now they're insisting that we give them a bonus instead of treating our wounds. Those are literally the facts, but why are so many Americans blind to the assault? In short, we've been brainwashed.

The Republican Party has demonstrated repeatedly that they are lousy at governance but there are none better when it comes to marketing their philosophy–and they should be, because they have but one philosophy–to divide and conquer. It would be inaccurate to call them racist, however, because they don't care any more about poor and middle class White people than they do minorities, but neither do they have any qualms about using racism and division to advance their interests.

Ironically, conservative Republicans have taken the Democratic Party's primary strength and used it against both the Democratic Party, and the American people as a whole. First they took the Democratic Party's penchant for being concerned with the plight of America and coin phrases like "bleeding heart liberals" and "tax and spend Democrats." Then they played on middle class frustration by tying civil rights, welfare, and crime into one neat bundle, and then attributed all of America's problems to the Democrat Party's tendency to be compassionate, or what they call, "bleeding heart liberals." The genius of that strategy was by engaging it, the Republican Party not only managed to demonize minorities as welfare cheats and criminals who only want to avoid work and prey on the middle class, but it also allowed them to tie all of those negative images to the liberal agenda. Then by using people like Rush Limbaugh and other Republican propagandists, they repeatedly hammered that message home until they convinced many poor and middle class White people to vote against their own best interests. After all, they didn't want to be aligned with "liberals," welfare cheats, and criminals–they're loyal and "hard-working" Americans. Thus, the Republican Party's entire agenda is about smoke, mirrors, and demonization in order to distract the American people. Take that ugly word "liberal" for example. The American Heritage Dictionary defines liberal as "Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry." What? An undereducated person wouldn't even recognize that definition. The way Rush Limbaugh spits it out you'd think liberal meant "one who stomps kittens and molests young children." On the other hand, The American Heritage Dictionary defines conservative as, "Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change." While there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that definition–that is, unless you happen to be a woman, Black, gay, poor, or different in any way--the definition is just as significant in what it doesn't say as what it does. In the final phrase under "liberal" the definition says, "free of bigotry," while in the final phrase under conservative it says, "tending to oppose change." That distinction is not insignificant since "traditional views and values" render each of the groups indicated above subservient–and by definition, conservatives oppose any change in that regard. In addition, the phrase "free of bigotry" is conspicuously absent in the dictionary definition. Thus, Republican talking points not withstanding, even the dictionary recognizes their underlining agenda. But what Republicans are against is just as instructive as what they are for. During the recent bailout, Republicans responded to corporate fat-cats giving themselves huge bonuses with taxpayer bailout money with just a few whimpers and some scattered and perfunctory whining. But when President Obama proposed spending taxpayer money on schools, police and firemen, you could hear their wail across the land. What makes protecting our communities, and educating American children more wasteful than giving out huge bonuses, perks, and jets to corporate fat-cats? There are three answers to that question. First, when we spend money on the American people, it takes away from their piece of the pie. They'd rather take that money and give even larger windfalls to their cronies--the very same fat-cats that they bought the jets for. While they claim the fat-cats are going to use that money to create jobs, we just saw exactly what they're actually going to do with it by the way they handled the bailout money--they're going to use it to wine, dine, and enrich themselves. The second reason that every Republican member of the house, and all but three in the senate, voted against helping the American people is that they didn't want to risk undoing all the time and effort that they put into brainwashing us. It wasn't easy trying to teach the American people that thinking of themselves was selfish, morally repugnant, and a form of socialism. But you've got to hand it to the Republicans, when you consider the unrestrained greed of the corporate fat-cats that we just witnessed, it is truly unbelievable how they continue to keep Americans in the dark. Which brings us to the third reason–education. After addressing the first two issues, it shouldn't be hard to understand why Republicans are against funding education–their very survival depends on an undereducated electorate. It's not easy to get people to vote against their own interests, and it would be next to impossible if the people were properly educated. The survival of Republican Party is totally dependent on a non-thinking electorate who will have a knee-jerk reaction to the fallacy of the "isms." In spite of the fact that the only way that America can possibly survive is through a highly educated citizenry, the Republican Party simply cannot afford an educated electorate. How can they survive in an environment where you have citizens asking, "Now, how is giving these fat-cats my money going to get them to create jobs, if you don't leave me with enough money to purchase what they produce?" They simply cannot have that kind of independent thinking running rampant throughout the nation. They need a population that's so dumb that every time they holler "socialism" we'll hand over our piggy banks. They need to keep us so ignorant that they can convince us that a government job is not really a job, it's just meaningless work, while at the same time, blind to the fact that they've been feeding from the public troff for the past thirty years. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com A moderate is one who embraces truth over ideology, and reason over conflict.

Sphere: Related Content

The Republican Party–a Threat to America

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE The Republican Party–a Threat to America One of the Republican Party's most enduring talking points is that the Bush administration has kept America safe since 9-11, but what evidence do we have of that? Even as the Bush administration bragged about their security efforts, they left both our front and back doors wide open. The two primary entry points into the United States are all but short of a welcome sign. In testimony before the Senate Finance Committee on September 27, 2007, Greg Kutz of the Government Accountability Office testified that GAO investigators were able to cross into the United States from Canada with a duffle bag filled with contents resembling radioactive material on three different occasions during the fall of 2006. He went on to testify that they did so without encountering even one law enforcement official. And as everyone knows, our Southern border is an absolute sieve. If Jose Garcia can simply walk across the Mexican border into the United States, what's to prevent Osama Abdul from doing exactly the same? So the Republican claim that they've kept America safe is clearly a myth. It's much more likely that America has not been attacked since 9-11 because Osama Bin Laden rationalized, why waste perfectly good terrorists to destroy America when Bush, Cheney, and the Republican Party were doing the job for him. America is much more than a piece of real estate. The heart of America is the American ideal. Even George Bush somehow recognized that, but even as he claimed that terrorists hated America because they hated our freedom, he was actively assaulting those very same freedoms. So if Bush's claim was indeed true, both he, and Dick Cheney, were Osama's most valuable allies. The problem is, the Republican leadership suffers from a sense of entitlement. They feel they have a moral right to control the power and resources of America, for the enhancement their own personal benefit and greed. Thus, the American people are nothing more than pawns to them. We represent inconvenient but necessary nuisances to help them further their imperialistic goals. After all, without us, who's going to fight their wars? Their strain of thinking was clear even as this nation was being established. Alexander Hamilton, one of the fathers of the conservative movement stated the following: "All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and wellborn, the other the mass of the people.... The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive an advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government." Debates of the Federalist Convention (May 14-September 17, 1787). So Mr. Hamilton took the condescending attitude that unless you were rich, or as he put it, "wellborn," you didn't have any sense, so your right to even participate in government should be limited at best. The "wellborn," on the other hand, should be given a "distinct and permanent" share in government. We see that very same kind of condescension toward the American people in the Republican leadership today. That accounts for why the neo-cons--in spite of the fact that almost to a man, they all avoided military service--saw no contradiction in sending the children of the poor and middle class Americans to fight and die in the desert for lack of proper equipment. That's why they also had no problem with making these same Americans pay for their own meals as they laid in the hospital fighting for their lives from wounds sustained "in defense" of this country, while at the same time, these neo-cons were indulging in a greedfest, and throwing billions of dollars away so recklessly that it can't even be accounted for. It also explains why Dick Cheney's Halliburton saw nothing wrong with grossly overcharging the American taxpayer to provide our troops with contaminated water. And this isn't the first time that Republicans showed a reckless disregard for the American people. After the stock market crashed during Herbert Hoover's administration, 15,000 WWI veterans marched on Washington demanding that they be paid what they were owed by the government. Hoover responded by calling in federal troops to throw these ex-servicemen off government property. Hoover's Republican administration tossed these brave veterans to the side like they were dealing with soiled toilet paper. That brings us to our current situation. As I pointed out in a previous article, there should be no doubt in our minds that the Republican leadership has a vested interest in doing everything they can to work against America. As they see it, the only way that they can regain control of this government is for Americans to suffer like they've never suffered before–and they're doing everything in their power to see to it that is exactly what happens. So America needs to keep its eyes open, because the harder President Obama fights to cure America's ills, the harder the Republican Party is going to fight against him. Clear evidence of that is their elevation of Michael Steele to Chairman of the Republican National Committee–the very first Black man to that position in its 153-year history. Coincident? Republican enlightenment? I don't think so. They simply figured that they needed another Black man to get down-and-dirty with President Obama--because it certainly couldn't be because of Steele's brilliance. His very first pronouncement was to try to convince a hungry America that the jobs program that President Obama created to meet their needs is an illusion"it's not a real job, it's just work." But somebody needs to inform Mr. Steele that whatever he chooses to call it, rather it be "job" or "work," it serves to feed children and save homes. Further evidence is that Rush Limbaugh was dumb enough to admit that he hopes Obama fails. Put plainly, what he was actually saying was he hopes that America suffers, because that's exactly what's going to happen if the president doesn't succeed. And finally, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said that the GOP should look to the Taliban for guidance on how the Republicans should go about disrupting President Obama's rescue program. And that's exactly how the American people should look upon the Republican Party, just like we do the Taliban–as a fierce threat to the American people. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com A moderate is one who embraces truth over ideology, and reason over conflict.

Sphere: Related Content

Secretary of the Arts? Sounds Like a Plan

   BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE Secretary of the Arts? Sounds Like a Plan Quincy Jones, musician, composer, and arranger extraordinaire, has started a petition that has drawn to date more than 220,000 signatures , asking President Obama to consider adding a Secretary of the Arts as a cabinet level post in his administration. At first blush that might sound rather frivolous in a nation that's involved in two wars, have people losing their homes, and is currently involved in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. But when given thoughtful consideration, it might just be exactly what America needs, and could very well turn out to be one of the most important cabinet posts in an Obama administration. What President Obama needs right now is a way to offset Republican efforts against him, and to rally the American people around his programs, initiatives and efforts--and there's no better way to do that than to enlist the assistance of the entertainment and arts community. Everyone one is essentially in agreement that America is in for some hard times ahead, but America's economic woes are not the biggest threat to this nation. We're going to get past that-- the biggest threat to this nation is the loss of the American spirit, and our confidence that we can survive this crisis. Thus, an organized and highly motivated arts and entertainment community can help us to address that issue, and they can also be of tremendous value in our foreign policy efforts. Look at the value that our entertainment community provided during the Great Depression and WWII. They rallied America's efforts close to single-handedly. They both kept America focused on its goal, and also gave us the motivation to reach that goal. It was a well trained and courageous military that won the battles overseas, but it was Duke Ellington, Benny Goodman, and the Maguire Sisters that won the battle on the domestic front. And as a result of these efforts, the thirties and forties turned out to be one of the most highly productive and creative periods in this nation's history. We must also acknowledge that America has a cunning and insidious domestic foe to overcome. In spite of their rhetoric and pledges to the contrary, the Republican Party has a vested interest in seeing America fail. They see they're interest as totally opposed to that of the American people. So when Rush Limbaugh said he hopes President Obama fails, he wasn't alone in that point of view, he was just the only one dumb enough to say it out loud. So let there be no doubt about the fact that there is nothing the Republican Party won't do to undermine President Obama's efforts to cure America's woes--with the possible exception of promoting those initiatives that enhance the business interest of their fat-cat friends. We should also not delude ourselves in the understanding that absolutely nothing would make the Republican leadership more effusive with delighted than seeing the American people suffer like we've never suffered before for the next four years. Therefore, we can expect them to pull out all stops to obstruct, frustrate, and delay, all efforts to bring relief to America's poor and middle class under President Obama's administration. That's where a strong and influential secretary of the arts would be of great value. An organized entertainment and arts community could be used to put both social and political pressure on the Republican leadership against sabotaging the American people. The arts community could rally the people to such a fever pitch over curing our national woes, that any efforts by the Republican Party to sabotage that effort would be political suicide. If the American people can be rallied to give their lives in a senseless war, they can certainly be rallied in their own best interest. Finally, and just as important to the nation's long-term goals, an innovative and influential secretary of the arts could have an extremely positive influence on both artistic responsibility, and the use of the arts as an educational tool. He or she could engage the nation, and the arts community, in a discussion over using the arts to enhance our lives, rather than drag us down. That doesn't mean to engage in censorship, but rather, to promote, educate, and encourage personal responsibility through the arts--with everything from cartoons, movies, and music, to the advertising billboards along our roads and highways. We could use the arts to change the way we relate to one another. We could promote knowledge, education, and community enhancement as cool, and crime, drug use, and irresponsibility as uncool–in other words, do just the opposite of what we're currently doing. So I'd say, let's go for it. It may be just what we need to turn our society around. We already have everything we need in place, so now all we need is the will to do it, and someone influential and creative enough to change our mindset. We could even take a page out of GW's book, and call it, "A War on Ignorance." Now that's a war I could rally behind. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com A moderate is one who embraces truth over ideology, and reason over conflict.

Sphere: Related Content