Judging the Homeless?

We have all heard it a million times - "I feel sorry for the homeless, but I refuse to give them money because I know they will spend it on booze." And yes, they just might. But, I might add, who could blame them? I am not condoning alcoholism or the use of alcohol to avoid reality, but it is certainly understandable how one in their situation might choose to drink, to dull the emotional or physical pain, to make the cold seem a little less cold, to drown the monotony, to forget for a just a little while. Most of us have done the same more than once, right?

But more importantly, who are we to judge them or try to make decisions for them? Who are we to withhold charity because we do not approve of their decisions or lifestyle? Why should we allow are generosity to be conditional? Generosity should never be conditional. This is why I oppose the requirement by some homeless shelters that residents attend religious services and/or pray in order to stay in the shelter.

Of course we should encourage the homeless to make productive, healthy decisions. Of course, we should encourage them to spend their money on food rather than alcohol. But we need to stop judging them. We need to stop trying to make decisions for them. And we need for our compassion to be unconditional. We should not withhold generosity for fear that they might make unwise decisions.

"The most premeditated of murders"

"An execution is not simply death. It is just as different from the privation of life as a concentration camp is from prison. It adds to death a rule, a public premeditation known to the future victim, an organization which is itself a source of moral sufferings more terrible than death. Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal's deed, however calculated can be compared. For there to be an equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life."

Albert Camus---"Reflections on the Guillotine, Resistance, Rebellion & Death" (1966).

"Standard-issue Republican conflation" or "When in doubt, Cheat"

From the Boise Weekly
NOVEMBER 8, 2006

HOLD YOUR NOSE AND THINK OF CHAKE-CHAKE

GOP voter-blocking makes democracy fun, even worthwhile

By TED RALL

DAYTON, OHIO-- You'd never guess that my friend Ken is so cynical. He's white and Harvard educated and comes off as the ultimate straight arrow in his off-the-rack suit. "Whether I vote or not doesn't matter," he likes to explain. "There's no chance that the outcome will be affected."
Indeed, there's only one known instance of a modern election having been decided by a single voter. On January 18, 1961, the Afro-Shirazi party won the parliamentary seat of Chake-Chake on Pemba Island in Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania) by one vote, granting it victory in the general elections. Ken might feel differently if he lived in Chake-Chake.

Widespread apathy can affect millions of votes and hundreds of races on Election Day, leading to sweeping political changes and even optional pre-emptive wars that kill hundreds of thousands of people. But there's nothing that you, as an individual, can do to change such a trend. You can cast your one vote. Or not.

Even if you lived in Florida in 2000, which was declared a Bush win after the Supreme Court ordered officials to stop counting the ballots, the most that you could have accomplished was to have nudged Bush's margin down to 536 or up to 538. Even under ideal circumstances--reliable machines, politically neutral and incorruptible supervisors and a thorough process to ensure that every vote is counted--your vote, as an individual decision, cannot change which candidate wins or loses. Voting is a gesture, symbolically supporting the democratic process the way attending church flamboyantly expresses faith without demonstrating it--nothing more.

And these are not ideal circumstances.

This year's mid-term elections, coming on the heels of the brazenly stolen elections of 2000 and 2004, find the electorate in a grim mood that makes my friend Ken look like a relative Pollyanna. Eight percent of whites and a whopping 29 percent of blacks (up from 15 percent in 2004) told Pew Research Center pollsters that they don't trust the government to count their votes.

"This notion that elections are stolen and that elections are rigged is so common in the public sphere that we're having to go out of our way to counter them this year," says Democratic strategist Donna Brazile about get-out-the-vote drives directed at blacks, who vote Democratic at least 90 percent of the time. Given recent history, overcoming their distrust is an uphill battle.

The Republicans' theft of the key state of Florida in 2000 has been exhaustively documented by shelves of books and newspaper recounts. One, a July 15, 2001 New York Times report titled "How Bush Took Florida: Mining the Overseas Absentee Vote," looks at the GOP's propaganda campaign to pressure Republican-dominated canvassing boards to illegally accept hundreds of absentee ballots mailed in by overseas military personnel after Election Day. Based on this incident alone, Gore won Florida by 202 votes.

On November 24, 2000, vote counters for predominantly Democratic Miami-Dade county fled their office when scores of young goons hired by since-disgraced Republican leader Tom DeLay "trampled, punched or kicked" election officials, a scene that was broadcast on national television. "When the ruckus was over," reported The Times, "the protesters [sic] had what they had wanted: a unanimous vote by the board to call off the hand counting."

Miami-Dade, it later turned out, put Gore over the top by thousands more votes.

Blacks, the most reliably liberal voting bloc, were specifically targeted by Republican operatives determined to deny them their right to vote. Police officers loitered outside polling places, threatening them with arrest if they did not produce identification cards. (This thuggery is illegal.) More than 200,000 "felons," most of them black and many of them without criminal records, were purged from voting rolls by the state's Republican-run board of elections. The truth is, Florida was never close. Exit polls, which had never been wrong, were again correct. Al Gore won by many thousands of votes.

In 2004, Ohio was the state that determined the race for the White House. Once again, the secretary of state was a partisan Republican who had campaigned for George W. Bush, J. Kenneth Blackwell. As they had done in Florida four years earlier, Republican operatives posted cops outside inner-city precincts to intimidate black voters. They "purged" the rolls of registered voters who had missed two consecutive elections, disproportionately targeting areas with a large African-American population. And Blackwell added a few ingenious new tricks.

"In several of the state's pro-Kerry cities," write the authors of the new book What Happened in Ohio?: A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election, "the secretary of state [Blackwell] effectively engendered a classic 'Catch-22' situation: as boards of election changed long-standing Democratic precinct locations shortly before the elections, Blackwell simultaneously disseminated out-of-date voter rolls to county officials, ensuring that many new voters would not be on precinct rolls given to poll workers. Then, to people who were confused as a result and did not end up at the correct precinct, he offered provisional ballots, but subsequently refused to count provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct--which was often simply the wrong table in the correct building and room ... Because of voting machine shortages, misinformation sent out by the secretary of state's office and/or improper signage at the precincts, many people waited for hours in the wrong precinct line in a newly relocated precinct. Often, these people found themselves ineligible to receive a provisional ballot unless they stood again in a different line."

Blackwell is off to bigger and better things this year, running for governor. But Republicans are still trying to stop Democrats from voting. In Orange County, south of Los Angeles, desperately trailing GOP Congressional candidate Tan Nguyen mailed a sleazy letter to 14,000 Latino Democrats warning that "If you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that can result in incarceration, and possible deportation." Standard-issue Republican conflation: Naturalized immigrants are allowed to vote.

Intellectually, I know Ken is right. My vote can't change a thing. But I'll do anything George W. Bush doesn't want me to do. Even if I have to pretend I live in Chake-Chake.

Mission Abandoned ?

New York Times

November 3, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist

As Bechtel Goes
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Bechtel, the giant engineering company, is leaving Iraq. Its mission — to rebuild power, water and sewage plants — wasn't accomplished: Baghdad received less than six hours a day of electricity last month, and much of Iraq's population lives with untreated sewage and without clean water. But Bechtel, having received $2.3 billion of taxpayers' money and having lost the lives of 52 employees, has come to the end of its last government contract.

As Bechtel goes, so goes the whole reconstruction effort. Whatever our leaders may say about their determination to stay the course complete the mission, when it comes to rebuilding Iraq they've already cut and run. The $21 billion allocated for reconstruction over the last three years has been spent, much of it on security rather than its intended purpose, and there's no more money in the pipeline.

The failure of reconstruction in Iraq raises three questions. First, how much did that failure contribute to the overall failure of the war? Second, how was it that America, the great can-do nation, in this case couldn't and didn't? Finally, if we've given up on rebuilding Iraq, what are our troops dying for?

There's no definitive way to answer the first question. You can make a good case that the invasion of Iraq was doomed no matter what, because we never had enough military manpower to provide security. But the lack of electricity and clean water did a lot to dissipate any initial good will the Iraqis may have felt toward the occupation. And Iraqis are well aware that the billions squandered by American contractors included a lot of Iraqi oil revenue as well as U.S. taxpayers' dollars.

Consider the symbolism of Iraq's new police academy, which Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, has called "the most essential civil security project in the country." It was built at a cost of $75 million by Parsons Corporation, which received a total of about $1 billion for Iraq reconstruction projects. But the academy was so badly built that feces and urine leak from the ceilings in the student barracks.

Think about it. We want the Iraqis to stand up so we can stand down. But if they do stand up, we'll dump excrement on their heads.

As for how this could have happened, that's easy: major contractors believed, correctly, that their political connections insulated them from accountability. Halliburton and other companies with huge Iraq contracts were basically in the same position as Donald Rumsfeld: they were so closely identified with President Bush and, especially, Vice President Cheney that firing or even disciplining them would have been seen as an admission of personal failure on the part of top elected officials.

As a result, the administration and its allies in Congress fought accountability all the way. Administration officials have made repeated backdoor efforts to close the office of Mr. Bowen, whose job is to oversee the use of reconstruction money. Just this past May, with the failed reconstruction already winding down, the White House arranged for the last $1.5 billion of reconstruction money to be placed outside Mr. Bowen's jurisdiction. And now, finally, Congress has passed a bill whose provisions include the complete elimination of his agency next October.

The bottom line is that those charged with rebuilding Iraq had no incentive to do the job right, so they didn't.

You can see, by the way, why a Democratic takeover of the House, if it happens next week, would be such a pivotal event: suddenly, committee chairmen with subpoena power would be in a position to investigate where all the Iraq money went.

But that's all in the past. What about the future?

Back in June, after a photo-op trip to Iraq, Mr. Bush said something I agree with. "You can measure progress in megawatts of electricity delivered," he declared. "You can measure progress in terms of oil sold on the market on behalf of the Iraqi people." But what those measures actually show is the absence of progress. By any material measure, Iraqis are worse off than they were under Saddam.
And we're not planning to do anything about it: the U.S.-led reconstruction effort in Iraq is basically over. I don't know whether the administration is afraid to ask U.S. voters for more money, or simply considers the situation hopeless. Either way, the United States has accepted defeat on reconstruction.

Yet Americans are still fighting and dying in Iraq. For what?

Speaking Their Mind

Subject: FW: NY Times editorial
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 12:34:41 -0700

Editorial
The Difference Two Years Made
Published: November 5, 2006

On Tuesday, when this page runs the list of people it has endorsed for election, we will include no Republican Congressional candidates for the first time in our memory. Although Times editorials tend to agree with Democrats on national policy, we have proudly and consistently endorsed a long line of moderate Republicans, particularly for the House. Our only political loyalty is to making the two-party system as vital and responsible as possible.

That is why things are different this year.

To begin with, the Republican majority that has run the House — and for the most part, the Senate — during President Bush’s tenure has done a terrible job on the basics. Its tax-cutting-above-all-else has wrecked the budget, hobbled the middle class and endangered the long-term economy. It has refused to face up to global warming and done pathetically little about the country’s dependence on foreign oil.

Republican leaders, particularly in the House, have developed toxic symptoms of an overconfident majority that has been too long in power. They methodically shut the opposition — and even the more moderate members of their own party — out of any role in the legislative process. Their only mission seems to be self-perpetuation.

The current Republican majority managed to achieve that burned-out, brain-dead status in record time, and with a shocking disregard for the most minimal ethical standards. It was bad enough that a party that used to believe in fiscal austerity blew billions on pork-barrel projects. It is worse that many of the most expensive boondoggles were not even directed at their constituents, but at lobbyists who financed their campaigns and high-end lifestyles.

That was already the situation in 2004, and even then this page endorsed Republicans who had shown a high commitment to ethics reform and a willingness to buck their party on important issues like the environment, civil liberties and women’s rights.

For us, the breaking point came over the Republicans’ attempt to undermine the fundamental checks and balances that have safeguarded American democracy since its inception. The fact that the White House, House and Senate are all controlled by one party is not a threat to the balance of powers, as long as everyone understands the roles assigned to each by the Constitution. But over the past two years, the White House has made it clear that it claims sweeping powers that go well beyond any acceptable limits. Rather than doing their duty to curb these excesses, the Congressional Republicans have dedicated themselves to removing restraints on the president’s ability to do whatever he wants. To paraphrase Tom DeLay, the Republicans feel you don’t need to have oversight hearings if your party is in control of everything.

An administration convinced of its own perpetual rightness and a partisan Congress determined to deflect all criticism of the chief executive has been the recipe for what we live with today.
Congress, in particular the House, has failed to ask probing questions about the war in Iraq or hold the president accountable for his catastrophic bungling of the occupation. It also has allowed Mr. Bush to avoid answering any questions about whether his administration cooked the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. Then, it quietly agreed to close down the one agency that has been riding herd on crooked and inept American contractors who have botched everything from construction work to the security of weapons.

After the revelations about the abuse, torture and illegal detentions in Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Congress shielded the Pentagon from any responsibility for the atrocities its policies allowed to happen. On the eve of the election, and without even a pretense at debate in the House, Congress granted the White House permission to hold hundreds of noncitizens in jail forever, without due process, even though many of them were clearly sent there in error.
In the Senate, the path for this bill was cleared by a handful of Republicans who used their personal prestige and reputation for moderation to paper over the fact that the bill violates the Constitution in fundamental ways. Having acquiesced in the president’s campaign to dilute their own authority, lawmakers used this bill to further Mr. Bush’s goal of stripping the powers of the only remaining independent branch, the judiciary.

This election is indeed about George W. Bush — and the Congressional majority’s insistence on protecting him from the consequences of his mistakes and misdeeds. Mr. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and proceeded to govern as if he had an enormous mandate. After he actually beat his opponent in 2004, he announced he now had real political capital and intended to spend it. We have seen the results. It is frightening to contemplate the new excesses he could concoct if he woke up next Wednesday and found that his party had maintained its hold on the House and Senate.

Vote early and vote often

The Revolution says Vote No on Prop 2 in Idaho

From Defenders of Wildlife:

Election Day is just four short days away -- and greedy out-of-state developers are trying to pull a fast one on Idaho voters. Don't be fooled by their elaborate and deceptive campaign attacking the protections for our wolves, salmon and other imperiled creatures.Proposition 2 -- the so-called “takings” initiative -- offers a no-win situation for our communities and our wildlife, all for the benefit of profit-hungry special interests.If passed, greedy developers could skirt the laws that protect our environment or force local communities to pay out millions -- even billions -- to land speculators, corporations and other special interests.
With only four days left before Election Day, here are three simple things you can do to stop Prop 2:

Learn More
Visit our web site to learn more about this harmful measure.

Spread the Word
Forward this email to as many other Idahoans as you can.

VOTE NO ON PROP 2
On November 7th, do your part to reject Prop 2 -- for our wildlife, our wild places and our communities.Two years ago, voters in Oregon passed a similar measure. Since then, wealthy developers in that state have filed nearly 3000 claims demanding over $5 billion in compensation from local taxpayers. Oregon communities can no longer regulate growth and development in a way that protects their way of life -- and urban sprawl is now a greater threat than ever to the state’s precious wildlife habitat, farmlands and open spaces.It’s such a mess in the state that, according to a recent poll, Oregon voters now oppose the measure by nearly a 2-1 margin.Don’t make the same mistake. Reject Prop 2 this November 7th.If the greedy developers win this fight, our communities and wildlife lose. It’s up to us to stop Prop 2 and ensure Idaho's wildlife and communities get the protection they deserve. VOTE NO on PROP 2 -- it is one of the best things you can do this November 7th to protect local communities and our wildlife.For more information, please visit our web site. Please don’t forget to forward this message on to all your friends, family, and neighbors in Idaho.


From Idaho Conservation League:

Vote to Protect Clean Air, Clean Water, and Quality of Life on November 7!
By voting NO on Proposition Two, you will be protecting Idaho.
Proposition Two could cost taxpayers millions if not billions of dollars.
Proposition Two allows speculators to dodge local land laws putting our quality of life at risk.
Proposition Two is being funded by New York City tycoon Howard Rich. It is not for Idaho, and its costly for taxpayers.
Proposition Two will change the character of our neighborhoods and rural lands forever. We cannot let outsiders do that to Idaho.
Vote NO on Proposition Two on November 7.
For more information on Proposition Two, go to www.neighborsprotectingidaho.org .