Welcome

Peace, Love, and Rock-n-Roll from a proud Lefty, Liberal, Socialist Hippie

Saturday, December 31, 2011

He said What?!

In yet another chapter of “It’s enough to make a Progressive’s head explode” liberal stalwart, Brendan Williams has endorsed Steve “Roadkill” Hobbs in the 2012 Democratic primary for the 1st CD. As published in Publicola, Williams says,

“In designing a 1st Congressional District weighted toward Republicans, the Redistricting Commission made centrism essential. My friend Steve Hobbs is an unrepentant centrist. Even where we disagree, I know where he stands. In a Congress dominated by the super-wealthy, Steve can be an authentic voice for the middle class because he is middle class. With his fiscal conservatism and social progressivism — along with his military service — Steve is best-suited to win a district made very challenging. Furthermore, as a Snohomish County officeholder he can best take on a presumptive Republican nominee from Snohomish County – John Koster


(Liberal firebrand Brendan Williams)


WOW!

Now I’m not sure how much impact his endorsement will have considering that, outside of those of us who follow Progressive politics pretty closely, Williams is a relative unknown in the northern elements of the district but I am sure that Hobbs will do his best to exploit it to his best advantage. What really concerns me however is the, ‘It takes a Republican-lite to beat a Republican’ talking point that punctuates the endorsement. I fully expect this from the party machinery but am bitterly disappointed in hearing it from someone who so passionately rails against this very language in his own criticisms of the new Democratic Party.

For years, those of us on the Progressive end of the spectrum have been arguing that the reason Democrats have a hard time making inroads into the more rural areas or in certain “swing districts” is that they don’t run candidates who stand for real Democratic values. Instead, they run candidates who run away from Progressive values and simply say that they can be as conservative as the other guy but in a more compassionate way. Take, for instance, Rick Larsen, who just won a narrow victory over John Koster in the 2nd CD. Williams suggests that Hobbs’ status as a Snohomish County officeholder will help him in a race against Koster. Perhaps Brendan isn’t aware that Larsen LOST Snohomish County in part because his lack of conviction to Progressive values; causing some in the Democratic community to stay home. While it may be true that Hobbs will have some advantage as a “hometown boy” it is just as true that he comes to the race with almost as much negative baggage in the county. His championing of the Roadkill Caucus has left him in very bad standing with the unions and his perceived assault on the teachers unions will certainly leave them looking for alternatives. I am hearing almost as much support for former 45th LD Rep. Laura Ruderman (another “moderate”) as the alternative to Hobbs as someone who “crosses the aisle.”

The fact that there are a couple of good Progressive candidates in this race that could have benefitted from a Williams endorsement is another bitter pill to swallow. Nepali immigrant and successful entrepreneur, Darshan Rauniyar certainly has the populist message and the funding to run a good campaign and Darcy Burner will almost certainly jump to the lead with most Progressive groups in the district. She is already very well known in Progressive circles and knows her way around a congressional campaign. She will have the baggage of two unsuccessful runs to deal with but she has a solid command of the issues and, I’m sure, a pretty solid list of surrogates who will be happy to help her establish name recognition in the district. Most importantly, she can and will run as an unabashed Progressive who will define and defend those values. In a year when “occupy” replaces “tea party” in the daily dialogue, this could be a Progressive’s year.

Also, in a year when Brendan William could be a strong contender to be the “Democrat for Life” in the newly created 10th CD, it is especially sad to see him throw his weight behind someone who assuredly would be a counter to many of the votes he would cast in Congress.

Of course, this may just be Brendan’s way of saying he would rather see Hobbs in DC rather than Olympia.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Sunday, December 18, 2011

IWR News - Last Entry

On December 15, 2011 President Barack Obama declared the official end to America's war in Iraq; 8 Years and 9 months after George W Bush announced our invasion of that country. Since February, 2006 this blog has been running the regular feature, "IWR [Iraq War Resolution]News." Using official numbers and names released by the Department of Defense, I have tried to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice for this country. I have tried to make every effort to refrain from editorial comment even though elsewhere on the pages of this blog, my particular point of view was never veiled. 

While the final numbers are subject to change as the very last of our troops leave the country and some of the wounded may still succumb to their injuries, it is time to end this feature on these pages. Below are the last names and numbers as released by the Department of Defense as the American occupation of Iraq formally comes to an end.


Iraq Body Count: 12/18/2011
Total Americans Killed: 4484
Post Obama Inauguration: 264
Post “End of Combat”: 68

“…a small price…” Rep. John Boehner

----------------------------

Latest Confirmed Casualties:

*Spc. Adrian G. Mills, 23, of Newnan, GA died Sept. 29 in Kirkuk, Iraq.

*Chief Warrant Officer James B. Wilke, 38, of Ione, CA died Oct.10, in Doha, Qatar.

*Staff Sgt. James R. Leep Jr., 44, of Richmond, VA died Oct. 17 in Babil province, Iraq.

*Pfc. Steven F. Shapiro, 29, of Hidden Valley Lake, CA died Oct. 21 in Tallil, Iraq.

*Capt. Shawn P. T. Charles, 40, of Hickory, NC died Oct. 23 in San Antonio, Texas.

*Sgt. 1st Class David G. Robinson, 28, of Winthrop Harbor, IL died Oct. 25 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

*1st Lt. Dustin D. Vincent, 25, of Mesquite, TX died Nov. 3, in Kirkuk province, Iraq.

*Spc. David E. Hickman, 23, of Greensboro, NC died Nov. 14, in Baghdad, Iraq.


Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Saturday, December 17, 2011

December 15, 2011 - The End of an Error

And so, 8 years and 9 months after George W Bush ordered American troops to invade a country that had neither attacked us nor possessed the means to attack us, the Iraq “war” is over.  4484 American troops lost their lives; 264 under President Obama’s watch with 68 of those coming after he declared the “end of combat” in August, 2010. Over 33,000 were wounded with many of them suffering loss of limbs. All of these figures are subject to change, of course, as some of the wounded may still succumb to their injuries. The rates of PTSD and GI suicide are unmatched in our military history. Upwards of 100,000 Iraqi civilians (including women and children) have died as a direct result of the invasion and untold thousands are still living in exile; driven from their homes during the height of the civil war which the invasion permitted to take place. Then there is the matter of the money spent/borrowed to pursue this invasion and occupation. The final numbers aren’t in but it’s safe to safe we are looking at hundreds of billions; money that was diverted from domestic needs.

President Obama and other elected officials have been quick with their praise of the troops; as well they should be. It is estimated that over one million troops passed through Iraq over the course of the almost 9 year occupation. Many of them served up to 9 separate tours in that country. They all sacrificed for our country and in our name.  Of course that does not mean that every American who served did so honorably. The photos from Abu Grahib and the stories about rogue troops in places like Haditha bore witness to the worst in human nature. But aside from the purely military performance aspect, there seems to be some doubt over the question of “Was it worth it?”

In order to be able to assess the “worth”, we must first establish the “it.” In this case the “it” must be measured in blood and treasure. Therefore, we must start with the value of a human life; 4484 human lives; hundreds of thousands of human lives. In September of 2007, current Speaker of the House (then, Minority Leader), John Boehner told us the money spent and the loss of life would be “a small price” (at that point 3700 American troops had already died)


After we determine for ourselves the value of a life, we then ask what it is that was actually accomplished with our un-provoked invasion and subsequent occupation of a country that had no air force, no navy, and whose infrastructure was still reeling from the damages we leveled in the 1991 Gulf War. After it became painfully apparent that would be no Weapons of Mass Destruction as charged by the Bush administration, the first thing we are told by those who led the charge is that the evil dictator, Saddam Hussein is no longer in charge. Captured and tried, he met his fate at the end of a hangman’s rope. This was in 2006. By this point 3,000 American troops had been killed. It is true that Saddam was brutal dictator. Human rights groups had reported that in the years prior to the 1991 Gulf War he had ordered thousands of Iraqis to their deaths and his regime was certainly guilty of brutal torture of thousands of others [As a point of reference, this was during the time when the United States (under the Reagan administration) considered Iraq to be an ally and was the recipient of our support in the form of both conventional weapons as well as chemical and biological stocks; which he subsequently used to kill Iranians as well as many of his own people], most groups have reported that, with the end of the Gulf War and a more watchful eye of the world upon him, Saddam’s ability to operate and commit such atrocities was severely curtailed. Indeed, most of the mass graves unearthed by our troops and by human rights groups since our 2003 invasion have been dated back to pre 1993.

So the next “benefit” we are told about is the improved quality of life for the Iraqi people.  So many of the returning veterans have told us about the schools and medical clinics they built and how they felt so proud of the way they had helped improve the lives of the Iraqi people. Indeed they should hold their heads up and take great pride in those efforts. However, it is worth taking a look at where things were before our invasion and where they stand today. By every report, before the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq boasted one of the best infrastructures in the entire Middle East. Their roads and bridges were comparable to any in the western world and their educational and health institutions were the envy of many countries in the region.  A secular oasis in the heart of the Islamic world, women were a major force in both medicine and scientific arenas. With the Gulf War, however, Iraq has now experienced some 20 years of almost constant bombardment, sabotage, and terrorist activity which has taken a real toll on every aspect of Iraqi life.

Today, according to last quarterly report from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) in October of this year, things are a long way from pre-war norms.


Electricity

Supply and Demand

Iraq’s electricity supply on the grid and estimated demand both reached record levels in July. Total supply averaged 175,580 megawatt-hours (MWh) per day, or 7,316 megawatts (MW). Each of the two components of current supply, power-plant production within Iraq and electricity imports from Iran, also achieved all-time highs. Demand, however, was almost twice the available supply— 336,900MWh per day, or 14,038MW— resulting in a 6,722MW supply-demand gap, the largest monthly shortfall to date. Figure 4.14 shows the monthly and 12-month rolling national averages for electricity supply and demand from January 2009 through July 2011. As discussed in SIGIR’s July 2011 Quarterly Report, as well as in the feature on the Kurdistan Region in this Quarterly Report, the aggregated supply and demand figures for the entire country mask the differences between the situations in the Kurdistan Region and the rest of Iraq. While the Ministry of Electricity (MOE) is currently struggling to provide at least 8 hours of electricity per day to consumers in the 15 provinces served by its transmission and distribution network, KRG [Kurdistan Regional Government] officials reported that consumers in the Kurdistan Region started experiencing full days of uninterrupted power this fall, though they expect this to drop back to 18 hours per day when demand peaks in the winter.

Water and Sanitation

The GOI, UNICEF, and the European Union this quarter released the findings of a survey assessing the conditions of water and sanitation services in Iraq’s 18 provinces. The survey found that 79% of the population has access to the drinking water distribution network, leaving one in five Iraqis without access to safe drinking water. Access is worse in rural areas, where two in five Iraqis do not have access to drinking water networks. The survey also found that 17% of the population does not have access to adequate sanitation services. Fluctuations in the supply of electricity, shortages in equipment and machinery, and lack of conservation were cited as main causes for the lack of water and sanitation services. The survey was part of a $10 million project to improve the GOI’s delivery of water and sanitation services.

Health Care

According to USAID, Iraq’s health care has declined significantly in the last two decades as measured by life expectancy, child mortality, and other indicators. The country suffers from systemic challenges, including a lack of doctors and trained staff (particularly nurses), a drug distribution system plagued by weak controls, and poorly maintained infrastructure that leads to unsanitary conditions. The poor security environment has created additional obstacles to the delivery of adequate care. According to a recent issue of The Lancet medical journal, an estimated 18,000 physicians— about half of the total that worked in Iraq prior to 2003—have fled the country. Iraq now has about one-fifth as many doctors and one-third as many nurses per person as Jordan. The GOI estimates that more than 600 physicians have been murdered since 2003, but the Iraqi Medical Association puts the number closer to 2,000. As a result of a deteriorating health care system, Iraq’s health statistics have worsened:

• Life expectancy at birth in 2010 was 58 years, down from 65 years in 1980.

• The chance of an adult dying before the age of 60 has increased almost 40% since 2000.

• The maternal mortality rate—84 per 100,000 live births—is twice as high as Jordan’s.

• The infant mortality rate is 41 deaths per 1,000 live births.

• Mortality for children younger than 5 is at 45 per 1,000 live births—twice as high as Jordan’s and almost three times as high as Syria’s.

• Child immunization rates are down nearly 20% since 2000 and now average about 36%.

And so, the question is, with thousands of lives lost, thousands more affected by injury and illness; with an infrastructure left in near third-world condition and with political uncertainty in the near future, has our invasion been “worth it” to the Iraqis?

As for the U.S.; there are also other considerations. Are we more secure as a country because of this invasion? The obvious answer must be that, as Iraq never posed a threat to this country, our security position had nothing to gain from that invasion. However, many people who are observers of history (especially Middle East history) will tell us that, the very act of invading a sovereign nation in that part of the world will leave us vulnerable to future threat from generations who will never forget that it was the United States that left them in the condition they are in today. As even former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld mused at one point; we should be careful not to create more terrorists than we are killing. Surely, watching your family flee their home and country or, worse, becoming orphaned, possibly with wounds of your own cannot be something that will fill you with love and respect for your invader/occupier.

And what of our own citizens? There is no doubt that our country was bitterly divided as a result of the election of 2000. But there can be no argument that the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq caused a total political civil war within this country that still has not mended. Will the end of the Iraq war help in the healing process? Already there are those on the right who are criticizing President Obama for simply complying with the terms of the Bush negotiated withdrawal of forces and ending the war. Worse still, they are saber rattling to start the next one in Iran.

In the past two election cycles, our economy has been at the center of the discussion (even as troops are still dying on Afghani and Iraqi battlefields). Our projected budget deficit is in the trillions of dollars. There can be no doubt that the billions spent in Iraq (almost every penny of which was authorized “off-budget”) – coupled with a massive reduction in revenues pushed by the Bush administration – contributed in the largest way to our current economic condition. Digging out only means more pain for those who are already at the bottom end of the economic spectrum. A recent report from the US Census Bureau concludes that 1 in 2 Americans are now classified as at or below the poverty line.

Am I happy the war is over? Ecstatic. Was it worth it? Not for a second.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Hey you! Get a Job!

Today, in reaction to hearing that US House Republicans had passed an extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed that included a requirement for drug testing for those who would seek an unemployment check (this bill was quickly shut down by Senate Republicans), I posted the following as my Facebook status:

“So for the Republicans in the US House of Representatives who believe the unemployed should have to pee in a cup before they can claim the unemployment benefit that they paid in to: - Before my wife pees in a cup for you, you will first need to pee in to a cup for the tax dollars you are taking from me in the way of salary and benefits. Never forget: YOU ARE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES and as such YOU WORK FOR ME!

This started a bit of give and take between me and a couple of my friends on the subject. I won’t share their names in this post and will only use their own words to get their points across. The gist of their argument is that people should be taking whatever jobs are available and not be relying on government handouts. They also seem to be very concerned that losing one’s job must lead to instant drug and alcohol abuse. The conversation went something like this:

1st Friend: Do you exclude the Dems in that statement? I had to pee in a cup for years to collect my salary! What's the difference?


Me: I don't exclude anyone who would pee on the unemployed and demean them as people rather than provide them with an opportunity for a job or provide them basic subsistence. And for whom were you peeing in a cup and what was your position. Did you know the requirement to provide bodily fluids before you accepted the job? Details Details....


2nd Friend: yeah I kind of agree. I think unemployment is too long, three months maybe four is all one needs to find a job; maybe not the one you want but something but you shouldn’t have to pee in a cup. You did pay in so that’s bs. Welfare on the other hand should be tested for everything; even alcohol and tobacco products. If you’re on welfare you shouldn’t have money for luxuries.


1st Friend: Details are it was mandatory for the safety of all those people you object to having to pee in a cup. I think it should apply to welfare payments as well! As a substance abuse counselor I am aware of how many children out there go hungry because their parents waste our tax dollars to buy drugs. If this pee in a cup can identify family drug problems, maybe the money would be better spent in that direction.


“I think unemployment is too long, three months maybe four is all one needs to find a job…” Wow!

Me: …As for 3 months to find a job...Jesus Christ! What planet are you living on?


2nd Friend: actually more like 10 days. It’s never been hard to find work. It’s out there. question is for most people do I want the job and pay but there are jobs and pay out there.....on earth the same place I live… exceptions could be people with a record.


1st Friend: Or drug problems!


2nd Friend: Of course but people with drug problems end up on the doll or in illegal activity. It’s difficult to be a functioning addict but I have met some. Problem isn’t only finding a job for an addict it’s also keeping it.


There is more to the conversation but I really was struck by the notion that there are people out here who honestly believe that the issue of long-term unemployment is really only a matter of too many lazy Americans. So to be sure I wasn’t the one imagining things, I went to the website for the US Department of Labor; to their latest numbers on how long people are going without jobs in this country. Below are the numbers from November, 2010 and November 2011.

Unemployed persons by duration of unemployment


Weeks                        Nov 2010                                Nov 2011
Less than 5 weeks    2,824,000                             2,519,000
5 to 14 weeks             3,336,000                             2,911,000
15 to 26 weeks           2,515,000                             2,111,000
27 weeks and over    6,328,000                             5,691,000


Yep, there have been folks getting those jobs after just 10 days of looking. But I can’t help but wonder how anyone can believe that between 5 and 6 million of their fellow citizens are content to simply sit at home for months on end (up to a year or more); drawing a check that will not even comes close to the wage they were forced to give up when the company they worked for decided it was more profitable to move off-shore or bring in a younger worker at a lower wage. But I guess that’s just what should be expected in today’s America.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Friday, December 09, 2011

Obama's War

Afghanistan Body Count: 12/08/2011
Total Americans Killed: 1,852
Post Obama Inauguration: 1,252
http://icasualties.org/

“…We will finish the job…” Pres. Barack Obama

----------------------------

Latest Confirmed Casualties:



*Spc. Sean M. Walsh, 21, of San Jose, CA died Nov. 16, in Khowst province, Afghanistan.

*Lance Cpl. Joshua D. Corral, 19, of Danville, CA died Nov. 18 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Pvt. Jackie L. Diener II, 20, of Boyne City, MI died Nov. 21 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

*Cpl. Zachary C. Reiff, 22, of Preston, IA died Nov. 21 of wounds suffered Nov. 18 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Cpl. Adam J. Buyes, 21, of Salem, OR died Nov. 26 in Helmand Province, Afghanistan.

*Sgt. 1st Class Dennis R. Murray, 38, of Red Broiling Springs, TN died Nov. 21 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

*Staff Sgt. Vincent J. Bell, 28, of Detroit, MI died Nov. 30 in Helmand province, Afghanistan.

*Sgt. Ryan D. Sharp, 28, of Idaho Falls, ID died Dec. 3, at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Landstuhl, Germany, of wounds suffered Nov. 21 at Kandahar province, Afghanistan.

*Sgt. 1st Class Clark A. Corley Jr., 35, of Oxnard, CA died Dec. 3, in Wardak province, Afghanistan.

*Spc. Ryan M. Lumley, 21, of Lakeland, FL died Dec. 3, in Wardak province, Afghanistan.

*Spc. Thomas J. Mayberry, 21, of Springville, CA died Dec. 3, in Wardak province, Afghanistan.

 
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

Friday, December 02, 2011

Obama's Tax Holiday - A Poison Pill?

A couple of days ago, I posed the following question on my Facebook page:


“If the Bush tax cuts were wrong (and I believe they were) why is it I am supposed to embrace the Obama "Payroll Tax Holiday" when it is taking money out of the Social Security Trust Fund? I mean, that is what the Payroll Tax is, isn't it? Why would I want to under-fund my Social Security?”

There were a few comments; none of which actually advocating for the Payroll Tax Holiday. Most everyone agreed that the Bush Tax Cuts should go away and a couple went into a discussion of healthcare costs and why we are in such financial trouble to begin with. A couple of folks provided me with the “official Obama explanation” (which pretty much sums up what I already knew):

“The payroll tax goes to the Social Security Trust Fund, but this proposal would not jeopardize the Social Security Trust Fund or the solvency of Social Security because the Trust Fund is made whole by general revenues. (In other words, the federal government would simply transfer funds from other areas into the Social Security Trust Fund to make up for any losses). Because of this, the Social Security Chief Actuary has certified that this proposal would not affect the solvency of Social Security. To pay for the payroll tax cut, the Senate plan would impose 3.25% surtax on people making over $1 million per year. To encourage more hiring, companies would not have to pay any payroll taxes on newly hired workers — on the first $12.5 million of an employer’s increased taxable payroll for the 4th quarter of 2011 and the first $50 million in increased payroll for 2012.”

So here are my issues with this scheme. First, the very fact that we are even discussing anything to do with Social Security at a time when the Republicans (and some Democrats) seem more than willing to “review” or “modify” the program as part of the discussion of deficit reduction, should make everyone nervous. Second, as we discovered last night, there is no way this Republican Party is going to ask their millionaires to reimburse a raid into the Social Security Trust Fund. Third; but perhaps most importantly, for the past few years, we Progressives have been able to rebut Tea Party and Republican rhetoric about Social Security contributing to the national debt by insisting that the program is run from an independent fund (hence the separate deduction on your paycheck and the whole basis for the Payroll Tax Holiday) and does not impact the General Fund. With this scheme (dressed up as a blessing on working people), Obama and congressional Democrats are handing the right-wing the argument they want to validate their desire to eliminate the program (or severely cripple it) as being a drain on the General Fund.

I ask again; why would any Progressive American support this scheme? I know that I certainly do not and am glad to read this morning that, at least for now, the notion is stalled. Of course that doesn’t mean Obama can’t revive it again by capitulating away some other Progressive token like a reduction in the Defense cuts set to take place next year.

 
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue