Nancy Boyda's Visit to the show

Rep. Boyda's visit to the show has created something of a flood of questions people want answered. I am posting some of the information that has come in here for people to reference and review.

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

" Chris: This soldier Op-Ed is another document to consider making sure Nancy Boyda and staff have perused."

The War As We Saw It
By Buddhika Jayamaha, Wesley D. Smith, Jeremy Roebuck, Omar Mora, Edward Sandmeier, Yance T. Gray and Jeremy A. Murphy. The New York Times, Sunday 19 August 2007.

For the complete article please visit:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/081907A.shtml

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

"Christopher:

Congratulations on getting Nancy Boyda as a guest on Community Bridge! That's quite a coup.

On Bush's credibility: make sure her staff (and if possible she herself) has seen the MoveOn video about Bush's history of claiming "progress."

Raise the question of General Petraeus's own credibility (as distinct from his competence as a military commander under the circumstances). Here are some key sources.

Again, it would not be ill to let her staff know she can expect questions on this issue grounded in these sources. That's not putting her on the spot. It's giving her the courtesy of a heads-up about the audience's specific points of concern.

• Paul Krugman, "Time to Take a Stand: Five Things for Democrats to Remember"here at truthout.org. Krugman points out the bearing of Petraeus' past predictions in the light of the GAO report on benchmarks and the "Jones Report" (from the commission of senior retired military and police officers commissioned by Sen. Warner). (NYT, 7 Sept 07); text available w/out charge

• For more on the GAO Report
  
• US Auditor Queries Military Iraq Casualty Figures"Includes remarks from interview with committee head, who questions the military's method of measuring casualties from "sectarian violence" (in its estimate that such violence has declined since the surge). (AgenceFrance-Presse, 7 Sept 07).
• Anne Flaherty, "GAO: Iraq hasn't met 11 of 18 benchmarks" (AP News, 4 Sept 07). Reports on White House intervention in the report, and on reasons for skepticism about statistics used in military's claim of "progress" in reducing sectarian violence."
  
• "GAO Report Card on Iraq Benchmarks" (Boston Globe, 5 Sept 07).
• Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. Ricks, "Report Finds Little Progress on Iraq Goals: GAO Draft at Odds With White House" (Washington Post, 30 Aug 07).

• For more on the "Jones Report" see
• "Iraqi forces made 'uneven progress', study finds" (AP, 5 Sept 07).

• Patrick O'Connor, "Democrats skeptical of Petraeus report" (Politico, 9 Sept 07).

• Tom Englehardt, "Launching Brand Petraeus: 'Progress by the Numbers'" (Tomgram, 9 Sept 07).
• This is the third in Tomdispatch's "by the numbers" series, leading up to this week's White House "Progress Report" from the U.S. commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. The first, in June, was "Iraq by the Numbers"; the second, in August, was "Escalation by the Numbers." You can check them for topics missing this time around.

• New York Times Editorial, "Hiding Behind the General" (NYT, 9 Sept 07).

• Ray McGovern, "Are Petraeus and Westmoreland Birds of a Feather?" (Truthout Perspective, 7 Sept 07).
• McGovern served as an Army infantry/intelligence officer in the sixties. He was then a CIA analyst for 27 years (and became, until his retirement, the officer responsible for compiling the daily intelligence estimate for the presiden. After his retirement he cofounded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
  

• Gary Langer, "Iraqis Say Surge Is Not Working" (ABC News, 10 Sept 07).

• Damien Cave and Stephen Farrell, "At Street Level, Unmet Goals of Troop Buildup" (NYT, 9 Sept 07); text available free here at truthout.org.

• Frank Rich, "As the Iraqis Stand Down, We'll Stand Up" (NYT, 9 Sept 07); text available w/out charge here at truthout.org.

There is also the report being brought by Ambassador Crocker, with whom it is worth getting some familiarity. See

• Karen DeYoung, "The Iraq Report's Other Voice: Ambassador's Appraisal May Carry a More Lasting Weight" (WP, 10 Sept 07).

Rep. Boyda should understand clearly that she needs to be with the anti-war Democrats who are opposing the strategy (disastrous for the country, as for Democrat) of forging a "consensus policy" with the Republicans on continuing the war. You and she both would want to be familiar with the following:

• Martin Kady II, "Anti-war Democrats fight for timeline" (Politico, 7 Sept 07).

Again, congratulations on arranging for Representative Boyda to be on Community Bridge -- and in this crucial week, too.

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

Hey Chris,
Please ask Nancy Boyda about HR 1717. It is a bill that wouls allow EXOTIC PATHOGENS WITH HIGH FATALITY RATES FOR WHICH THERE IS NO KNOW VACCINE OR THERAPY to be imported onto our mainland, a prerequisite for researching then in the Naitonal Bio and Agro Defense Facility (NBAF) proposed for Manhattan. HR 1717 is sponsored by representatives from Texas and Mississippi, states also in the running with Manhattan as sites for the biggest germlab in THE WORLD.

To view the text of HB 1717 go to:
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c110KFERud::
------------------------

"Christopher,
Here's a resource to exploit in preparing to talk with Boyda.

------- Original Message --------

Subject:	The People's Report: Answering the Petraeus Report
Date:	Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:48:45 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Institute for Policy Studies

Dear friends,

Gen. Petraeus today was full of no surprises -- the "surge" is working, we need more time, we need more cooperation from the Iraqi government, we need more U.S. troops to spend more time in Iraq, we need more dead Iraqis... oops, sorry, he didn't really say that last one, but he might as well have, since that's the consequence of his plan.

The only thing new, since the last general's briefing, was the focus on Iran. The U.S. occupation of Iraq is not any longer about the "global war on terrorism" -- now it's all Iran, all the time. This is extremely dangerous, and there must be no let-up in pressure to prevent further escalation of this war for empire to new vistas in Iran.

My IPS colleagues Erik Leaver and Saif Rahman and I have written a short new piece called "Iraq: The People's Report" to answer the claims of the Petraeus Report. It's being distributed by the United for Peace and Justice anti-war coalition -- and includes an assessment of what's wrong with the report, as well as a look at the costs of war to Iraq and to the U.S., and a one-page description of how to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq without abandoning our obligations to the Iraqi people. Please take a look -- it's a four-page flier, and you can download it and print it on either 8 1/2 x 11 or 11 x 17 inch paper.

It's available at http://www.unitedforpeace.org/downloads/people_s_report_11by17.pdf or at http://www.unitedforpeace.org/downloads/peoplesreport.pdf

There continues to be a lot of excuses from Democrats and their supporters, claiming that the reason they can't end the war is they don't have the votes, or don't have a veto-proof majority. They don't, but a number of peace organizations have realized that if the Democrats really WANTED to end the war, there is a different way of cutting the funding, without having to worry about getting 67 votes in the Senate or a veto-proof majority in the House.

The Bush administration is requesting $141 billion more funding for the occupation of Iraq, and is about to ask for another $50 billion on top of that. In a new campaign, some groups are calling on the House Appropriation Committee chairman, Congressman David Obey, to simply refuse to bring those latest funding requests to a vote. If you stop the vote, they reason, you stop the funding. And Bush can't veto something that hasn't been voted on. If the speaker of the house, California Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, tries to do an end-run around such a decision by the Appropriations Committee chairman to force a vote on the House floor, she would have to admit that she's working awfully hard to support the war -- and peace groups point out that Nancy Pelosi represents a strongly anti-war district that wouldn't like that very much.

It's an interesting idea. After all, the Democrats have been in control of the Congress for almost a full year -- and nothing has changed. The war continues; there are MORE U.S. troops occupying Iraq than there were a year ago; almost TWICE as many Iraqis are being killed and injured as a year ago. U.S. troops continue to die and continue to kill.

It's way past time to end the occupation. Hope you find the new Report useful.

all the best

Phyllis Bennis

Director, New Internationalism Project

Institute for Policy Studies

1112 16th Street NW #600

Washington DC 20036

tel: (1-202) 234-9382 ex 206

----------------------------------------------
Representative Boyda,

First of all, I would like to thank you for voting in favor of the Hate Crimes bill earlier this year, which included hate crimes committed towards LGBT individuals. I understand that now Congress is working on passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would include sexual orientation and gender identity in the federal non-discrimination policy. Right now a person can be fired for being gay in 31 states and for your gender identity in 42 states including Kansas. Would you please tell us your thoughts about ENDA and whether you support such legislation?

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

Representative Boyda,

I understand that you did not support the funding of a domestic partnership registry in Washington, DC, which would have enabled unmarried couples there who share a relationship of mutual support, caring and commitment to formally record their relationships. Would you please explain why you voted against using federal funds to establish such a registry?

Note from Christopher: Washingtion DC has never used federal funds for its domestic partner registry, so the vote in Congress was largely symbolic, but it is still rather unsettling that she voted for the resolution.

KILL THE POOR

I'm posting this because it shows how much organizations link to the Bush administration are purposely spreading false information about the state of the US economy and the impact of their policies.

09/04/2007
KILL THE POOR
Phony Poverty Study Fools Lazy Journalists
by Ted Rall

NEW YORK--They're baaack! Once again the Heritage Foundation is mangling statistics to whitewash the ugly facts of life in Republican-run America.

Last time, in 2005, they attacked the image of U.S. soldiers as cannon fodder being exploited for Halliburton. Au contraire, claimed the conservative propaganda mill. American troops, they said were actually "wealthier, more educated and more rural than the average" citizen. Of course, this wasn't true. "Military personnel are poorer and less educated" than the average Joe, I found when I took a closer look. Heritage's soldier study used junk logic and apples-to-oranges statistics to promote the GOP's wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. And it worked.

The lazy men who run the big newspapers and TV networks, deluded into believing there are two sides to every story, dutifully repeated Heritage's lies. They never questioned a word. More soldiers died. The Heritage story made us feel less guilty about it.

Now Heritage is telling us that there are no poor people--very few, anyway, and then only for short periods of time--in the United States. The truth is that capitalism is failing millions of Americans. The less we think about the problem, the less we think it is a problem, the worse it will become.

The pseudoacademic demagogues of the right want us to distrust our own eyes. Panhandlers? "Homeless by choice" urban campers, Ronald Reagan, patron saint of modern Republicanism, called them. Single mothers? He said they were "welfare queens." Americans who live in the sprawling slums of the inner cities, the washed-up Walmarted Main Streets of the farm belt, and the scary barred-window suburbs of California and Georgia and Illinois? They're living large, says the Heritage Foundation in a "study" whose dubious findings have already been reprinted--completely unquestioned, as usual--by hundreds of newspapers read by millions of gullible subscribers.

The Census Bureau says that 36.5 million Americans--one in eight--are poor. But "if poverty means a lack of nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, then very few of the people identified as living 'in poverty' would, in fact, be characterized as poor," says Heritage's Robert Rector. "The typical person defined as 'poor' by the Census has cable or satellite TV, air conditioning, a microwave, a DVD player or VCR, and two color TVs."

No doubt, poor people in a technologically advanced nation like the United States don't live as minimally as those in undeveloped states like Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, on the other hand, a middle-class American homeowner would be spectacularly wealthy. A man worth $500,000 could become a warlord. There are no Afghan billionaires. Poverty is relative.

Even the claim that gadget ownership is incompatible with true poverty doesn't hold up: Rector refers to "a DVD player or VCR." But VCRs are antiquated, a decade out of date. It's like saying that someone who owns "a computer or a typewriter" isn't poor.

"Poor Americans living in houses or apartments, on average, have more living space per person than does the average citizen living in European countries such as England, France and Germany," the Heritage study asserts. There's a footnote--but the source material doesn't include figures for per-capita housing density in Europe. (As far as I can tell, such data doesn't exist.) Even if it's true, though, it's a factoid without a point. Europe, urbanized for the past 2000 years, has an overall higher population density than we do--yet enjoys the world's highest standard of living.

The more you think about Heritage's BS, the worse it gets.

"Three quarters of these 'poor'"--note the quotes--own a car," Rector continues. Are those cars in good working order, or up on blocks? He doesn't say--but there's a difference.

"When asked, [the typical 'poor person'] reports that his family was able to obtain medical care whenever needed during the past year," he continues. True--sorta. Uninsured people often rely on hospitals, enduring long waits and high fees for substandard care rendered by harried emergency room staffers. Hospitals are legally obligated to treat them--but it's hardly a workable system. Many poor (and middle class) people put off going to the doctor as long as possible.

Then there's this sparkling gem of compassion: "Some poor families," admits Rector, "do experience a temporary food shortage, a condition touted as 'hunger' by activists. But even this condition is relatively rare: 89 percent of the poor report their families always have 'enough' food to eat, while only 2 percent say they 'often' do not have enough to eat."

"Temporary food shortage." If that isn't hunger, what is? "Very simply," says the U.S. Department of Agriculture, "hunger is defined as the uneasy or painful sensation caused by lack of food. When we talk about hunger in America, we refer to the ability of people to obtain sufficient food for their household. Some people may find themselves skipping meals or cutting back on the quality or quantity of food they purchase at the stores. This recurring and involuntary lack of access to food can lead to malnutrition over time."

Economists consider a society's infant mortality rate to be the most reliable indicator of its citizens' quality of life, and the prevalence of poverty. The United States has the second-worst infant morality rate in the industrialized world--behind Latvia, tied with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia. Western Europe--France, Germany, etc.--kicks our national ass. The poverty rate for American children under 18 was 21.9 percent in 2006, the highest in the developed world.

Upwardly mobile Americans can escape poverty numerous ways--by, for example, earning a college scholarship. But we also suffer a lot of downward mobility, typically after losing a job. "While in any given year 12 to 15 percent of the population is poor," says Michael Zweig, author of "What's Class Got To Do With It, American Society in the 21st Century" (2004), "over a ten-year period 40 percent experience poverty in at least one year because most poor people cycle in and out of poverty."

Even the Heritage Foundation concedes that some poverty exists in this best of all possible laissez faire worlds. But, they argue in the finest tradition of blame-the-victim, it's "self-inflicted, a result of poor decisions and self-defeating behaviors."

Poor Americans, they say, have a "weak work ethic." The evidence: "The typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year--16 hours per week. "If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year--the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year--nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty." This assumes that poor parents live in a magical job market where they can work as many hours as they please--a condition that would only exist with zero percent unemployment.

"Father absence is another major cause of child poverty," says Heritage's poverty study. True. "Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.3 million children are born out of wedlock." Again true. The conservative solution: "If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty." Stupid welfare queens! Why do they refuse to marry the fathers of their children?

A cat or dog understands hunger. The fact that we have to have this discussion demonstrates the success of the right in redefining basic terms--and the failure of the press to question it.

(Ted Rall is the author of the new book "Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?," an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America's next big foreign policy challenge.)

COPYRIGHT 2007 TED RALL

Summer Wrap-up

We ended our summer season with a wrap up session concerning a variety of topics we didn't have time to cover in the summer programming schedule. Here are the links and/or commentaries read on our August 9th show.

We began with a commentary by Christopher Drew entitled: Scientists' Tests Hack into Electronic Voting Machines in California and Elsewhere. You can read this commentary by going to:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072807Y.shtml

Next you should check out David Felix's 'Sicko' economics, round 2 available at:
http://www.bangordailynews.com/news/t/viewpoints.aspx?articleid=152647&zoneid=35

We closed the show with NAomi Wolf's Time for a Democracy Movement that you can find by search on the Huffington Post website at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ - the URL was just too long to post here, or by going to:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/31/2882/

We are posting Criag Paul Robert's commentary here for you to read. Mr. Roberts will be our guest on the September 6th show.

Impeach Now or Face the End of Constitutional Democracy

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran.

Bush has put in place all the necessary measures for dictatorship in the form of "executive orders" that are triggered whenever Bush declares a national emergency. Recent statements by Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff, former Republican senator Rick Santorum and others suggest that Americans might expect a series of staged, or false flag, "terrorist" events in the near future.

Many attentive people believe that the reason the Bush administration will not bow to expert advice and public opinion and begin withdrawing US troops from Iraq is that the administration intends to rescue its unpopular position with false flag operations that can be used to expand the war to Iran.

Too much is going wrong for the Bush administration: the failure of its Middle East wars, Republican senators jumping ship, Turkish troops massed on northern Iraq's border poised for an invasion to deal with Kurds, and a majority of Americans favoring the impeachment of Cheney and a near-majority favoring Bush's impeachment. The Bush administration desperately needs dramatic events to scare the American people and the Congress back in line with the militarist-police state that Bush and Cheney have fostered.

William Norman Grigg recently wrote that the GOP is "praying for a terrorist strike" to save the party from electoral wipeout in 2008.
Chertoff, Cheney, the neocon nazis, and Mossad would have no qualms about saving the bacon for the Republicans, who have enabled Bush to start two unjustified wars, with Iran waiting in the wings to be attacked in a third war.

The Bush administration has tried unsuccessfully to resurrect the terrorist fear factor by infiltrating some blowhard groups and encouraging them to talk about staging "terrorist" events. The talk, encouraged by federal agents, resulted in "terrorist" arrests hyped by the media, but even the captive media was unable to scare people with such transparent sting operations.

If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in the Middle East and to entrench the "unitary executive" at home, it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush's declaration of "national emergency" and the return of the draft. Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance.

A series of staged or permitted attacks would be spun by the captive media as a vindication of the neoconsevatives' Islamophobic policy, the intention of which is to destroy all Middle Eastern governments that are not American puppet states. Success would give the US control over oil, but the main purpose is to eliminate any resistance to Israel's complete absorption of Palestine into Greater Israel.

Think about it. If another 9/11-type "security failure" were not in the works, why would Homeland Security czar Chertoff go to the trouble of convincing the Chicago Tribune that Americans have become complacent about terrorist threats and that he has "a gut feeling" that America will soon be hit hard?

Why would Republican warmonger Rick Santorum say on the Hugh Hewitt radio show that "between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public's (sic) going to have a very different view of this war."

Throughout its existence the US government has staged incidents that the government then used in behalf of purposes that it could not otherwise have pursued. According to a number of writers, false flag operations have been routinely used by the Israeli state. During the Czarist era in Russia, the secret police would set off bombs in order to arrest those the secret police regarded as troublesome. Hitler was a dramatic orchestrator of false flag operations. False flag operations are a commonplace tool of governments.

Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging "terrorist" attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?

Only a diehard minority believes in the honesty and integrity of the Bush-Cheney administration and in the truthfulness of the corporate media.

Hitler, who never achieved majority support in a German election, used the Reichstag fire to fan hysteria and push through the Enabling Act, which made him dictator. Determined tyrants never require majority support in order to overthrow constitutional orders.

The American constitutional system is near to being overthrown. Are coming "terrorist" events of which Chertoff warns and Santorum promises the means for overthrowing our constitutional democracy?

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

36 Years and counting: when will lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgered people have eqaulity?

by Christopher E. Renner
From Bob Strawn's interview with Citizens for a Better Manhattan...
Yes or no. Do you support amending the city’s anti-discrimination ordinance to include sexual orientation and gender identity?
No. I grew up as a man working for Chevron, a San Francisco company, and later for General Atomics, and currently for General Atomics, a San Diego company. I have had a tremendous amount of exposure, more so than probably 99% of the people in Manhattan, to gay and lesbian cultures in commerce. I have many friends who are gay people, gay men. I can’t say that I know a lot of lesbian women because I just don’t, but I do know a lot of gay men. We have had gay people in our house for dinner. I consider them my friends. I do not believe in Manhattan that we have, what I have seen, that we have achieved a level where we need to make a special class of people and segregate them based on their sexual orientation. I grew up at a time during the sexual revolution when once sexuality was a very private matter. I don’t want people knowing what my sexual proclivities are or making choices about my employment or where I live based on what my sexual choices are. I think that exacerbates the problem; it doesn’t cure the problem. Those are intensely personal choices that ought to remain there. So I do not believe and I have not seen in this community a level of angst towards gays, lesbians, transsexuals that would require me as a city commissioner today to say we need to establish a special class of people. If that changes, I’ll deal with it, but I sure don’t see it today.

Bob Strawn’s comments during his interview for the City Commission conducted by Citizens for a Better Manhattan on whether he would or would not support changing Manhattan’s Anti-Discrimination Ordinance typifies the inherent prejudice and ignorance of many politicians when it comes to assuring that the citizens they supposedly represent have their basic civil and human rights protect. When he says he doesn’t see the “angst” needed to change the ordinance, I have to ask how can he, since he is a member of the heterosexual majority and as such has no idea of fear many LGBTs live in daily. His statement, along with statements by Don Miller and Paul Barkey at the Human Rights and Service Board in 2006, exemplify the prejudice and bigotry LGBTs face daily in Manhattan.

In a new report released by the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School, they document that hate crime rates against lesbians, gay men and bisexuals are comparable to other groups already covered by federal hate crime laws that currently only defines race, color, religion and national origin as protected categories.(1)

The "Comparison of Hate Crime Rates across Protected and Unprotected Groups" report shows that on average, 13 in 100,000 gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals per year report being the victim of a hate crime, compared with eight in 100,000 African-Americans, 12 in 100,000 American Muslims and 15 in 100,000 Jews.

Those who were in attendance at the Human Rights and Services Board’s deliberations on the proposal to change Manhattan Anti-Discrimination Ordinance to include sexual orientation and gender identity and expression, saw hate crimes that had been committed against residents of Manhattan dismissed by the Board’s members. One person who gave testimony of being attacked and beaten while walking home form Aggieville was told that his story didn’t demonstrate any form of discrimination because he was covered by state statue for battery. The individual was beaten by three thugs, who did so solely because they assumed he was gay and repeatedly called him a “faggot.” According to the Human Rights and Services Board this wasn’t an example of discrimination. Go figure!

Shortly after I returned to the US in August, 1998, I had the culture shock of dealing with the killing of Matthew Shepard. I have to say that part of the reason I left the US in 1982 was because I was tired of being afraid of being an openly gay man. Returning to US brought up all those fears I had from my adolescence when I was reminded daily by my classmates that as a faggot, I was less than human. The brutal murder of Matthew Shepard brought up all those feelings I had long thought were behind me. Why, as a culture are we so afraid of people who are different from ourselves?

About four months after that event, I had a late night visitor come to my house. Bloody and distraught, he too had been attacked in Aggieville because someone thought that fag bashing was a sport. This individual was not out to his family and refused to go to the hospital or call the police to report the beating he had just endured. He was filled with fear that his parents would find out he was gay and would disown him. He was more worried about that than the fact that he could have serious injuries. He had been beaten with 2X4s by two guys who had approached him in a bar and asked if he wanted to spend the night with them. I cleaned him up to the best of my ability and urged him to go to the hospital, but mostly he just cried about being a disappointment to his family. Two months later he graduated from KSU and moved to Los Angles.

His story is an example of why Bob Strawn doesn’t see the “angst” in Manhattan that would require changing the city’s anti-discrimination ordinance. But even larger is the fact that Bob has to see “angst” in order to make local laws better. What we see in Bob Strawn’s thinking is nothing more than government not doing what it is supposed to do: protect the residents of the community.

Then there is the issue of work place discrimination, examples of which were brought before the Human Rights and Services Board that were once again dismissed by its members.

On June 19th Harris Interactive released the results of a survey it had conducted for CareerBuilder.com, an online employment service, and Kelly Services. It focused on workers in seven groups - African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Females, LGBT workers and people in the workforce over the age of 50.(2)

CareerBuilder said it ordered the survey to gauge the frequency and severity of discrimination or unfair treatment in the workplace, whether employee diversity is valued and how diversity impacts hiring decisions, compensation and career advancement.

This study found that 28 percent of LGBT employees have suffered harassment in the workplace with nearly half describing it as severe. However, 48 percent of respondents reported that the most common incidents of discrimination or unfair treatment involved not receiving credit for one's work.

Almost as many said their concerns about discrimination were not addressed or taken seriously by their superiors/employers. Thirty-three percent said they were victimized by co-workers talking behind their backs and almost as many said they were overlooked for promotion.

Half of diverse workers who experienced discrimination or unfair treatment said they did not report the incident. Of these workers, 64 percent said they didn't think reporting the incident would make a difference while 35 percent feared being labeled as a trouble-maker and 32 percent feared losing their jobs.

The Harris Interactive survey is supported by another report conducted by the Williams Institute at UCLA.(3) It found that “Studies conducted from the mid-1980s to mid-1990s revealed that 16% to 68% of LGB respondents reported experiencing employment discrimination at some point in their lives. Since the mid-1990s, an additional fifteen studies found that 15% to 43% of LGB respondents experienced discrimination in the workplace.”

“When asked more specific questions about the type of discrimination experienced, LGB respondents reported the following experiences that were related to their sexual orientation: 8%- 17% were fired or denied employment, 10%-28% were denied a promotion or given negative performance evaluations, 7%-41% were verbally/physically abused or had their workplace vandalized, and 10%-19% reported receiving unequal pay or benefits.” (3)

We can continue to pretend that hate crimes against members of our community don’t happen and we can go on believing that people aren’t discriminated against on the job because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation. The fact is that people are in both situations.

But more disturbing to me is that we, a democratic society based on the believe that all people are created equal, have allowed our government and laws to be hijacked by a small group of people who want to dismantle our government and our society and replace it with theocracy.

In his recent book, American Fascist: the Christian Right and the War on America, Chris Hedges talks about how followers of the Christian Right have cloaked the cross in the US flag; they have latched onto the “despair, isolation, disconnectedness and fear” of our modern society and use it to pass repressive laws, like the Kansas Marriage Amendment, that penalize those they fear. “The Bush administration has steadily diverted billions of taxpayer dollars from secular and governmental social service organizations to faith-based organizations, bankrolling churches and organizations that seek to dismantle American democracy and create a theocratic state “- Hedges page 23.(4)

LGBTs saw the face of this fascism at the final Human Rights and Services Board meeting when Don Miller, Paul Barkey and their followers went on for over 3 hours describing what vile, evil people LGBTs were. And just as the leading American institutions tasked with defending tolerance and liberty - from mainstream churches to research universities like KSU, our political parties, and the media - our local institution failed to stand up for the very people they are charged with protecting.

We cannot in the name of tolerance allow people whose intent is the destruction of our way of life to highjack our institutions and demonize whole segments of American society, saying that they are manipulated by Satan and worthy only of conversion or eradication.

Thus we must speak out on this anniversary of Stonewall for all Americans who suffer oppression and be vigilant against those who wish to turn our nation into another Iran.

Sources:
1. Stotzer, Rebecca (2007). Comparison of Hate Crime Rates Across Protected and Unprotected Groups. Los Angles: The Williams Institute.
2. Study: 28 Percent Of LGBT Workers Harassed by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff, http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/06/061907jobs.htm
3. Badgett, M. V. Lee; Lau, Holning; Sears, Brad; & Ho, Deborah (2007). Bias in the Workplace: Consistent Evidence of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination. Los Angles: the Williams Institute.
4. Hedges, Chris (2006). American Fascist: The Christian Right and the War on America. New York: Free Press.

Repeating Past Mistakes

by Christopher E. Renner
I attended the public forum on June 18 concerning the proposed Kansas Department of Transportation project to upgrade the K-18 corridor between Ogden and Manhattan. This public meeting was well attended and facilitated. I arrive a little late to the meeting, so I missed the name of the woman facilitating, but it was obvious that she was trained in the National Discourse model for discussing complicated questions like the K-18 proposal.

The purpose of the meeting was to provide the public an opportunity to hear about a competing proposal brought forward by Joe McGraw and other business owners on the K-18 corridor.

Each side was given 15 minutes to present their proposals.

KDOT began by explaining the difference between a Freeway vs. an Expressway. Freeways are accessible only at interchanges, ie, I-70, and carries a maximum amount of through traffic and have the maximum amount of restrictions to access. Freeways have .591 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles. On the other hand, Expressways are high-speed multi-lane roads with access at most public roads, ie, US 24 between Manhattan and Wamego. Expressways have 1.521 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles.

KDOT prefers a Freeway to an Expressway for the K-18 corridor because of the growth in traffic over the next 25 years. Currently there are 18,000 vehicles per day traveling on the existing road. This number is expected to rise to 30,000 vehicles per day by 2030, which is the lifetime of the new road. Of the 18,000 vehicles on K-18, 2/3s or 11,880 travel between Manhattan and Ogden.

The KDOT proposal would whereas the KDOT proposal would have changes in the roadbed at Ogden and after the airport and drivers would access the expressway via diamond interchanges at Ogden, the airport, Scenic Drive, and the Miller Parkway/Davis Drive intersections.

McGraw began his proposal with an introduction about the fact that Manhattan is changing and his feelings that we need to “slow down” the pace of the change, - this from a political conservative who pro-business and anti-government! Go figure. He proposed to make Ft. Riley Blvd. a TRUE boulevard, keeping to the K-18 in the current K-18 roadbed and placing traffic circles at Scenic Drive, the Airport and at the entrance to Ogden. Effectively slowing down rush hour traffic to a crawl. So instead of taking 10 or 15 minutes to get home, it would take anywhere from 30 to 60.

McGraw claimed to have 100% of residents of Eureka Valley behind their proposal. They claimed that traffic circles would slow down traffic and make the existing road safer. They also were all about “allowing business” to develop along Ft. Riley, as is happening along eye sore I-70 has become in Junction City, so that Manhattan “could compete for economic dollars.” They concluded their proposal with using Seth Childs road as an example of what K-18 could become.

At the beginning of the evening the facilitator encourage us to “care about people,” “question to help understanding,” and “think creatively” in order to generate a consensus solution to the problem being proposed.

I sat there listening, I was reminded of a Albert Einstein quote: "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” Both proposals reflected thinking that is more in line with a 1960s view of the world, than one that is looking 30 years down the road.

Back in the 50s Manhattan leaders were given the option of having the proposed new interstate highway we know call I-70 to follow US-24 and the Kansas River Valley from Junction City eastward to Topeka. Manhattan’s leaders of that time exercised their same shortsightedness that I was seeing at this meeting; they told KDOT and the federal government that they didn’t want any 4-lane highway coming through their town. As a result millions of additional tax dollars have had to be spent by the state of Kansas and federal government to create 4-lane corridors between Manhattan and I-70; Manhattan and Wamego; and now Manhattan and Junction City. Had we used foresight and doing what is best for the common good, rather than allowing local economic and political interests to dictate that decision, we wouldn’t even be having a discussion about K-18 today. Why can’t we learn from our past mistakes?

The reason I ask this question is that I saw nothing creative in either the KDOT proposal, and certainly not in Joe McGraw’s proposal. Both are based on the concept that in 2030 we will still all be driving individual cars, that petrol will still be readily available, and that our lifestyles will not have changed in the face of global warming and the depletion of natural resources. These underlying assumptions of status quo being what 2030 will look like greatly disturbed me. We are once again using the vision of Manhattan leaders in the ‘50s and are really missing the boat to a future which energy independence and mass transit is normative.

If by 2030, we are going to have 30,000 cars traveling between Ft. Riley and Manhattan, I am sure the number is based on the assumption that each car will have one passenger - the driver. I live close to Ft. Riley Blvd, and last year when they were working on the Seth Child interchange, was able to set and watch traffic in the morning and evening. The vast majority of cars with Fort decals on their from window had one passenger in them.

Given the state of the world and growing political disintegration of the Middle East into civil war, it would seem to me that we ought to be making decisions about what our future is going to be based on the assumption that we will not have as much petroleum available to us as we assume we do today.

What I took away from the meeting was that Manhattan will need a means to move 30,000 people per day between Ft. Riley and the neighborhoods in which those people live. 30,000 cars is more than just wasteful, it is down right immoral when we think of the lives lost in Iraq for oil. If we were truly concerned about the future of our community, wouldn’t it seem obvious that what is needed is not another highway?

The mathematics is simple: Most cars get poor gas mileage, but lets say they get on average 26 mile per gallon carrying one person. Whereas if that same gallon of gas was placed in a bus could get we would get 115 mpg per person and in that gallon were placed in a train, we would get 7,800 miles per gallon per person.

So, why is KDOT and the County Commissioners using the same thinking that cause the problem we face - congested, unsafe highways, instead of thinking about a new alternative that lightrail link connecting Manhattan and the Fort? Maybe because they have never heard Einstein’s thinking on the matter. Maybe because they just plain lack creativity. In any case, it is the same thinking that put I-70 eleven miles south of town and continues to cost the taxes payers on the state.

A rail link with express trails could have passengers to and from the Fort in as less as 10 minutes. Express trains could be connected to bus routes in the city of Manhattan providing efficient, energy-saving and much less polluting connections from home to work for a majority of the people - 11,880 at the current rate. Providing them financial savings, helping get our nation and community off our oil addiction, and improving the quality of air we breath.

It is time we started thinking about a future which isn’t weighed down with the same mistakes we have made in the past. It is time we got serious about Global Warming and the planet we will leave to the next generation.

Saving the lives of our children

8 June 2007.
by Christopher E. Renner

Today we have discussed in detail the issue of HIV/AIDS. After 25 years this disease is still treated as a taboo subject in general US culture with nearly 40,000 new HIV infections occurring each year in the US. No one needs to be infected with HIV in 2007 and yet it is still happening. People still believe you can get it from toilet seats or by touching a HIV+ human. Why do these beliefs continue to persist in the information age?

The answer is simple: as a nation we fail our children and young adults daily because instead of providing scientific and medically valid information, we have political leaders toeing the ideological line of religious fanatics. As a result, young people today are more at risk of infection not only of HIV, but a broad spectrum of antibiotic resistant sexuality transmitted infections (STIs) because of sexphobic religious leaders and their followers.

Sex education is critical in providing young people with the information and skills they need to make responsible, informed choices about their sexual and reproductive lives. While parents are and should be the foremost sexuality educators of their children, many would like help from schools and community-based organizations. Currently no federal program is dedicated to supporting age-appropriate, medically accurate sex education that emphasizes the benefits of abstinence and educates young people about contraception and prevention of sexually transmitted infections, despite the proven effectiveness of such programs. The lack of a federal program leaves many sex education decisions in the hands of state governments.

Across the country, state legislatures continue to offer sex education legislation. Last year, 28 states, spurred on in large part by religious reactionaries, have introduced 115 bills that attempt to determine what students will or won’t learn about human sexuality. While several states introduced positive measures that will enforce responsible and comprehensive sex education programs, many states introduced bills that would prevent abortion-providing agencies from teaching sex education in schools and would prioritized funding to agencies that did not provide abortions or contraception.(1)

But the vilest treat of all is how the media has ignored the Waxman Report. In 2004, Rep. Henry Waxman (D — CA), released a report about the state of abstinence-only sexuality education which the Bush administration and the fanatics in the Religious Right has force upon not only the US public education system but tied to development aid across the world.

The report examined school-based sex education curricula used by programs funded under Special Projects of Regional and National Significance Community-Based Abstinence Education (SPRANS), the fastest-growing source of federally funded abstinence education. Since 1996, nearly $1 billion in state and federal funding, under three funding streams, has been spent on abstinence-only education that denies young people information about contraception beyond failure rates. Another $170 million in federal funds was spent in FY 2005, despite a lack of evidence supporting the effectiveness of this approach.(2)

The report found that the curricula used by more than two-thirds of government-funded abstinence-only programs contain misleading or inaccurate information about abortion, contraception, genetics, and sexually transmitted infections:

• The abstinence-only program “Me, My World, My Future” states, "Tubal and cervical pregnancies are increased following abortions." According to obstetric textbooks, previous abortions are not correlated with ectopic pregnancies.
• “Choosing the Best, The Big Talk Book” states, "[R]esearch confirms that 14 percent of the women who use condoms scrupulously for birth control become pregnant within a year." In fact, when used correctly and consistently, only two percent of couples who rely on the latex condom as their primary form of contraception will experience an unintended pregnancy.
• “Why kNOw” states, "Twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and 24 from the father join to create [a fetus]." Human cells are actually comprised of 46 chromosomes; 23 from each parent.
• “WAIT” Training incorrectly states that HIV can be transmitted through tears and sweat. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), HIV is only transmissible through blood, semen, and vaginal secretions.(1)

The Waxman report also found that many abstinence-only curricula even go so far as to blur the line between religion and science, and treat gender stereotypes as scientific fact. It found that these curriculums:

• grossly underestimate the effectiveness of condoms and other contraceptives in preventing pregnancy and STIs;
• make false claims about the physical and psychological risks of abortion;
• offer misinformation on the incidence and transmission of STIs;
• replace scientific facts with religious views and moral judgments; and
• distort medical evidence and basic scientific facts.(2)

In the past 10 years, Congress has wasted more than $1 billion on dangerous abstinence-only programs that deny teenagers vital information about birth control and responsible decision-making — while approximately 750,000 U.S. teens become pregnant and four million get a sexually transmitted infection each year. And right now, our federal government is spending another $176 million on these dangerous programs. Programs that do not work!

It's time to stop wasting money. The vast majority of parents support responsible, comprehensive sex education, and that's what the Responsible Education About Life (REAL) Act is all about. The REAL Act will provide funds for medically accurate, age-appropriate sex education in schools. H.R. 1653/S. 972 legislation introduced by Reps. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Chris Shays (R-CT), and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), will appropriate funds for programs that provide age-appropriate, medically accurate information on the values of abstinence and the health benefits and side effects of all contraceptives and barrier methods as a means to prevent pregnancy and reduce the risk of contracting sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV/AIDS.

The vast majority of parents in the United States support responsible sex education. A study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2004 reveals that parents want schools to do more in the way of preparing their children for real life. In addition to the basics of reproduction, information about HIV/AIDS and other STIs, and messages about abstinence, all of which are standard in comprehensive sex education classes, parents want the following topics to be covered by sex educators: correct use of condoms, other forms of birth control, how to get tested for STIs, and the emotional consequences of becoming sexually active.(3)

In a 2001 poll of 1,750 registered voters, 85 percent agreed that all students should receive age-appropriate information about contraception and the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. Seventy percent of these voters strongly agreed (Lake, Snell, Perry & Associates, 2001).(4)

America's leading medical and public health experts support responsible sex education, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Nurses Association, and the Society for Adolescent Medicine, as well as leading public health experts and educators like the American Public Health Association.

You can join this effort by telling Congresswoman Nancy Boyda and Senators Brownback and Roberts to support the REAL Act. You can also sign an on-line petition at:

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/rrr/petition.asp

We need responsible people to speak out against the culture of fear and dis-information of the Religious Right for the lives of our youth and the future health of our nation. HIV/AIDS can be prevented. We can dramatically reduce the health risk to all young people by provide accurate, medically sound education. It is time we threw off the yoke of religious fanaticism and became the a nation whose health policy is founded on fact, not fiction.

Sources:
1. Planned Parenthood, http://www.saveroe.com/issues/sex-education/misinformation-abstinence-only, accessed June 7, 2007.
2. Guttmacher Institute http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2004/12/03/index.html, accessed June 7, 2007.
3. National Public Radio /Kaiser Family Foundation /Harvard University Kennedy School of Government 2004 Poll "Sex Education in America
4. Lake, Snell, Perry & Associates and Deardouff & Associates/The Media Company Nationwide. (July 2001) Survey of 1750 Registered Voters Nationwide. Presentation for Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

Protecting Democracy

Following Bill Moyers' special this week on PBS concerning the media's lack of critically challenging the propaganda of the Bush administration leading up to the War in Iraq, I post the following points for people to reflect on. We must constantly be vigilant to guard the democracy we have be blessed with. It can easily be destroyed if reason and critical thought is replaced with irrationalism and fear.

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Which Side Are We On?

By Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

Read as the commentary on the April 19 edition of Community Bridge.

In early February, President Bush told a group of Wall Street executives that "income inequality is real; it's been rising for more than 25 years. And the question is whether we respond to the income inequality we see with policies that help lift people up, or tear others down."

It's ironic that this president raised the issue of income inequality because his own trickle-down economic policies have contributed to the growing gap between the very rich and everyone else, a situation worse today than at any time since the '20S.

Despite Bush's professed concern, the budget he recently submitted to Congress will exacerbate the enormous gap between the rich and the poor, squeeze the middle class, reward war profiteers and hurt those most in need.

The president's budget cuts the number of children receiving childcare assistance by 300,000 and terminates food stamps for 280,000 families. At a time when veterans urgently need access to healthcare, the president's budget imposes a new enrollment fee for Veterans Administration healthcare as high as $750. And the list goes on and on.

Over the next decade, the Bush budget would cut Medicare by $252 billion and Medicaid by $28 billion. In 2008 alone, education will be cut by $1.5 billion and the Environmental Protection Agency will lose $509 million.

The administration claims-we just don't have the money to reduce childhood poverty or provide universal healthcare. Meanwhile, millionaires would receive an average tax break of $160,000 per year at a cost of $739 billion over the next decade. And, the president's 2008 defense budget - $6o8 billion - is more than at the height of the Vietnam and Korean Wars.

Class warfare is being waged in America and the wrong side is winning. It is time for the new Democratic majority in Congress to stand with the working families of our country. It is time we offer a budget that reflects the needs of working people instead of the wealthy.

And it is time for citizens across the nation to stand up and demand that their representatives and senators, Democrats and Republicans, do so and thereby represent the interests of all Americans, not a select few.

We must ask: Which side are we on? Are we for the rich and the powerful or the middle class and working families?

As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I see a pretty clear answer. I will not be voting for more tax breaks for the outgoing CEO of Home Depot, who recently received a $210 million golden parachute. Rather, I will be voting to substantially increase financial aid for low and middle class families so that every American, regardless of income, can receive a college education.

I will not support a tax cut for the former CEO of Pfizer, who received a $200 million compensation package. Instead, I will vote to substantially increase funding for childcare so that families can find affordable and quality care for their children.
The former CEO of ExxonMobil, who managed to get a $400 million retirement package, does not need more tax relief. It is far more important that we keep our promises to the veterans of this country who now find themselves on waiting lists to get the health care they need.

If we as a nation are serious about creating a more egalitarian society, we need to invest more federal resources in education, health care, housing, infrastructure, environmental protection and sustainable energy. We also have to reduce our national debt. Given that reality, Congress must develop the courage to stand up to the big money interests and roll back the tax breaks for the wealthiest one percent, stop corporate welfare, eliminate unneeded defense weaponry, and demand that the wealthy and powerful rejoin American society.

We should do nothing less.

-Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

This editorial appeared in the March 2007 edition of In These Times magazine. In These Times is dedicated to informing and analyzing popular movements for social, environmental and economic justice; to providing a forum for discussing the politics that shape our lives; and to producing a magazine that is read by the broadest and most diverse audience possible.

Visit them at: http://www.inthesetimes.com/

In ten years, what kind of Manhattan do you want?

by Christopher E. Renner

I began reading a book this week that stuck my interest for the title alone: American Fascists; The Christian Right and the War on America by Chris hedges, the author of Losing Moses on the Freeway. In this book, Hedges challenges the Christian Rights’ religious legitimacy and argues that at it core it is a mass movement fueled by unbridled nationalism and a hatred for an open society. I you enjoy programs like “Evolutionary Faith” which is what won us our Kansas Broadcasters award, you will enjoy reading this book.

According to Hedges, all it is going to take is another national crisis like the attack on the World Trade Towers for the Christian Right to make a concerted effort to destroy American democracy. Much as they did in supporting the passage of the Patriot Act, which has grossly curtained our civil rights and recourse to judicial remedies for the invasions of privacy and the right to habeas corpus.

As we have seen in this year’s Kansas legislative session, the right has done everything they can from attacking academic freedom to denying people access to health insurance because of the individuals they love, the Right’s anti-democratic agenda is clear.

On April 3 Manhattanites have some serious decisions to make that will affect the long-term livability of our community. After suffering through four years of a theocratic-laden city government that carried out policies threatening the very nature of civic government, much as Hedges discusses in his book, we have had two years of “don’t rock the boat,” just when we needed real dynamic leadership to ensure that our redevelopment as a community was structured in a way that was beneficial to all residents. Unfortunately, positive vision-driven leadership has been lacking on the issues of redevelopment, public health and safety.

I have read letters in the Mercury exalting the more extreme candidates to the City Commission who will address the “tax issue.” What these letters do not do is explain is why we have a “tax issue” to begin with. Because of the theocratic vision of our former City Commission, that held unrestricted capitalism as next to Godliness - a theological dictum that has little, if any, support in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth - at a moment when the City should have intervened to protect property owners from the unbridled speculation of a few developers, no action was taken. Homeowners like myself are now paying for artificially high property values caused by the “hands off” approach of the past.

I am very concerned with the mantra of “lowering the mil level” as the Golden Fleece of the current property tax concerns. Lowering the mil level will most help those whose homes have the most value, who SHOULD be paying more taxes than those of us who earn less than $30,000 a year and have seen our home values increase by 150%. It will do nothing to correct the mistakes of the past. That requires much more effort than what I have seen in the superficial rhetoric of several ill-informed candidates.

Moreover, we have real quality of life issues to be concerned about. I think the redevelopment in the North and South end of downtown Manhattan is missing the boat. We do not need more big box stores. We need commercial space that will allow small business owners to thrive and provide opportunities for the diversity of our community to be reflected in commercial establishments. We do not need to look like Johnson County. We need more public space, not more privately controlled space. Dial Reality is not going to be challenged to change their course of action by the social conservatives running for City Commission. If anything, these politicians will only further contribute to suburban-sprawl feel of the development and will force even more average-income families and individuals to leave our community.

But my real concerns have to do with how, as a municipality, we respond to the social service needs of those who are returning to our community after having served in the War in Iraq. Ft. Riley is our largest employer and as a community we will have to respond to issues we prefer not to talk about. First, we have priced the enlisted troops out of the home-ownership market, a grave mistake. Then we have issues like: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is suffered by at least 18 percent in the returning enlisted personnel, 30 percent among National Guard and Reservists troops. Sexual assault in the military is up 24% over last year. Many children have one or both parents stationed in Iraq. Needs for programs like the Boys and Girls Club and Big Brothers and Big Sisters cannot keep up with the increased demand for services. Childcare is approaching crisis proportions.

I have heard nothing coming from the mouths of those speaking loudest on the “tax issue” as to how our community will respond to these pressing issues. This not only concerns me, but makes me ask why are these people running for office? We do not need more religious zealots who intend to impose their religious views as public policy and political carpetbaggers who will support the developers sitting in City Commission seats. We need individuals who have the knowledge, skills and vision to make Manhattan a better community for everyone who lives here.

I want to encourage people to get out and vote in this April’s election. The Manhattan we have in 10 years will depend in large part on the decisions of this election. Moreover, I hope when we go the polls, we will consider the human needs of our community and make responsible decisions rather than decisions that are based on short-term fixes and self-serving rhetoric.

Four Years and Counting.

Christopher E. Renner
Originally Read on 15 March 2007

This week we learnt for the mainstream news something those of us who have questioned the Bush administration’s policies concerning civil rights had been award of for some time. The Justice Department reported rampant FBI abuses of the Patriot Act’s National Security Letter (NSL) provision that gives agents sweeping powers to demand sensitive personal records without court approval - that means you bank records, who you talk to on the phone, what e-mails you received, etc.

The Justice Department report reveals that from 2003 to 2005, the government issued a staggering 143,000 National Security Letters, in some cases barring recipients from even reporting they’ve received a letter. How much more proof does Congress need that this dangerous provision defies democratic values? How many more of us will be investigated and gagged before the FBI is reined in?

There’s only one course of action. It is time for Congress to repeal the expanded Patriot Act powers that opened the door to these abuses. This un-American, anti-democratic piece of legislation was designed to gut the constitution of our most fundamental rights and allow those who control the political process to control your personal choices. It is time it stopped!

I hope you will let Rep. Boyda and those two cow-toeing Senators we have, Pat Roberts and Sam Brownback, that you want the Patriotic Act repealed. Rep. Boyda might actually listen to you, I doubt of the other two will. All I ever get from Sentors Roberts and Brownback are the computer-generated replies to my almost weekly letters or faxes concerning the direction the Republicans have take our country that never address a single issue I raise, but simply parrot their mindless rhetoric.

Monday marks the anniversary of the Bush’s effort to bankrupt our nation or the so-called War in Iraq. To date 3,194 US men and women serving in the armed services have died in a war that is immoral, that was begun by lies, and has done nothing but demonstrate how the values we claim we hold dear have no real value. At the same time 23,417 have been wounded. I think it is interesting to point out that many of those aren’t actually labeled “wounded” but rather are listed as suffering from some “disease,” which is another way the corrupt Bush administration lies to the American public about the truth of the War in Iraq. I hope people take advantage of this anniversary to express your disapproval of Bush’s war by joining with other like-minded people on Saturday and march in opposition to this policy of destruction.

Moreover, Stacy Bannerman in Foreign Policy in Focus reports that “at least 30 percent of Iraq or Afghanistan [veterans] are diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), up from 16 percent to 18 percent in 2004,” (data reported Stratton VA Medical Center). “The number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans getting treatment for PTSD at VA hospitals and counseling centers increased 87 percent from September 2005 to June 2006, and they have a backlog of 400,000 cases, including veterans from previous wars. The most conservative estimates project that roughly 250,000 Iraq war veterans will struggle with PTSD.”

“These figures are particularly significant for citizen soldiers when considering that: A 2004 analysis of Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans who received VA health care revealed that 58 percent of the veterans seeking treatment were members of the Army Reserve/National Guard and 71 percent of Operation Enduring Freedom vets who utilized VA services were citizen soldiers. A 2006 report detailing VA healthcare utilization by Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans revealed that, of those who sought care for PTSD, 18 percent were formerly active duty personnel, and 30 percent were National Guard soldiers and Army reservists. Even at their highest rates of deployment, National Guard soldiers and Army reservists represented no more than 44 percent of deployed forces; and, many studies conducted at Walter Reed Military Hospital don't include National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers.”

“National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers have less training and preparation for deployment, less cohesive units, and most never expected to see combat, factors that put them at significantly higher risk for stress-related disorders than active-duty military.” For the complete article visit: http://www.alternet.org/story/49226/

We have to ask what are the long-term effects of this “War on Terror” going to be on our society and nation? How many people will be adversely affected psychologically and how will those people be cared for? What will their PSTD do to our communities? To their families? Who will bear the financial burned? How many will end up homeless?

And why aren’t more people asking why the hell are we are still stuck in a quagmire of a civil war we have no hope of ending or resolving?

We - the American citizenry - are responsible for allowing ourselves to be lead as a nation by irrational fear instead of our core values of democracy and civil rights. We are responsible for allow corrupt politicians to destroy our most sacred values as a nation and replace them with theocratic falsehoods the founders of this nation made sure to marginalize.

It is time we got our priorities right for a change. As long as we disrespect the human and civil rights of others, we put every man, woman and child in our country at risk of being another victim of mindless hate -- hate cause by our own very actions.

Only by respecting the rule of law, respecting national and international conventions on torture and imprisonment, controlling our irrational fears with knowledge and understanding, and, above all making sure that we obey the golden rule, will we be able to overcome to damage done to our nation and our history by those who are driven by arrogance, greed and pessimism.