Project Censored Book Release & Awards Celebration

Book Release Celebration & Awards Party
December 5, 2009

Open invitation to all Project Censored Students, Interns, Alumni, Authors, and Supporters. Join Project Censored in celebrating the release of Censored 2010, Peter Phillips's final yearbook

Censored 2010, Peter Phillips's final yearbook is co- edited by Mickey Huff. Meet Ben Frymer, the new director of Project Censored and Carl Jensen, our founder.

Good food, beer, wine and Great conversation.
Reception 6:00 PM
Music and Speakers 7:30-9:30: Michael Parenti, Bruce Brugmann (SF Bay Guardian), Dennis Bernstein, Miguel Molina, Nora Barrows-Friedman (Flashpoints Radio)

Odd Fellows Hall
545 Pacific Avenue
Santa Rosa, California

Admission includes food and one drink ticket
$35.00 per person includes autographed Censored 2010 yearbook
$20.00 general, $10.00 students and low-income

A benefit for Project Censored sponsored by Media Freedom Foundation: 707-664-2588

Check out the Project Censored sites:
http://www.projectcensored.org/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Project-Censored/151690209993
http://www.dailycensored.com/
http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/

Read article »

Fred Hamptom Jr. & Big Man at SSE

Chairman Fred Hampton Jr.
to speak at Sonoma State University
November 9, 7:00 PM
Special Guest: Elbert 'Big Man" Howard

Fred Hampton Jr. Chairman of the Prisoners of Conscience Committee—CCOP will speak at Sonoma State University Monday, November 9, 2009 at 7:00 PM in Stevenson Hall RM 1002.

Title of the talk will be, “You Can Kill a Revolutionary but You Can’t Kill the Revolution.”

Fred Hampton Jr. will discussing the 40th Anniversary of the assassination of his 21 year -old father Fred Hampton, Deputy Chairman of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party, and his comrade 22 year old Defense Captain Mark Clark. Both killed by the U.S. Government in 1969.

Special Guest for the event will be Sonoma County resident Elbert (Big Man) Howard co-founder of Black Panther Party Oakland.

Chairman Fred Hampton Jr, is not only a former political prisoner, he is the son of the assassinated deputy Chairman Fred Hampton of the Black Panther Party who was born 2 weeks after the government murdered his father and incarcerated his mother, on December 4th, 1969.

This is a free event for students. A $5.00-$10.00 donation will be accepted for general admissions—no one turned away for lack of funds.

This event is sponsored by Project Censored, Media Freedom Foundation, SSU MECHA, www.blockreportradio.com, SF Bay View Newspaper, Brown Berets, Barrios Unidos, NAACP & Black New World and Sociology 425 Urban Research Methods class at SSU—Peter Phillips Instructor.

Peter Phillips Ph.D.
Professor Sociology—Sonoma State University
President—Media Freedom Foundation
1801 East Cotati Ave
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
707-664-2588

Daily News at: http://mediafreedom.pnn.com/5174-independent-news-sources
Validated News & Research at: http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/
Daily Censored Blog at: http://dailycensored.com/
Project Censored: http://www.projectcensored.org/

Read article »

The News That Didn't Make the News

Censored 2010: What would you expect in return if you gave someone 64 million dollars? You'll find the answer to that question and other puzzling social and political issues among the new top 25-censored stories just revealed by Project Censored. Here's the rest of the story.

The Top Censored Stories of 2008-09, edited by Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff in cooperation with students and faculty at Sonoma State University and numerous other colleges and universities, is to be officially released September 30, 2009. The Censored 2010 yearbook features the twenty-five most important censored news stories of 2008-09 as selected by Project Censored. The annual yearbook from Project Censored at Sonoma State University is available in bookstores nationwide from Seven Stories Press or can be ordered on-line in both English and Spanish at http://www.projectcensored.org/. Project Censored was the winner of the 2008 PEN Oakland Censorship Award.

Censored 2010 provides over 400 pages of media criticism and analysis from dozens of researchers and academics with assistance from students on nine college and university campuses. "It is the most comprehensive yearbook we have ever released," said Peter Phillips, recent past director of Project Censored. After thirteen yearbooks, Dr. Phillips turned over the directorship of Project Censored in the summer of 2009 to Ben Frymer assistant professor of Liberal Studies at Sonoma State University. Dr. Frymer will continue the thirty-four year tradition of researching and publishing the most important news stories not covered by the corporate media in the United States. "We are carrying on the research started by our founder Dr. Carl Jensen in 1976," stated Dr. Frymer. Carl Jenson celebrated his 80th birthday this year and remains active on the non-profit board of directors of the Media Freedom Foundation-the 502-C-3 fund-raising organization for Project Censored. (http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/)

Also featured this year in Censored 2010, is the annual Déjà vu chapter with updates on the most significant news stories still not covered in the corporate media from previous years; the Junk Food News chapter addressing the most frivolous news stories that were covered in the media such as Michael Phelps smoking of an illegal substance and the presidential first puppy; and a special chapter on the positive news stories of hope and citizen activism so often left out of our corporate media.

Censored 2010 welcomes back the biting political cartoons of Khalil Bendib and contributions from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting's annual Fear and Favor review, the Center for Media and Democracy's special report on pentagon propaganda, and the annual international report from the London based Index on Censorship.

"We are honored to have international independent journalist Dahr Jamail provide a strong introduction to this year's book," said Mickey Huff co-editor. "Jamail has won numerous awards for his work on the Middle-East and represents one of the best examples of independent investigative reporting in this decade," added Huff.

As Peter Phillip's final yearbook, Censored 2010 address many of the criticisms regarding Project Censored efforts over the past fourteen years. "We take on the long time critics who claim that Project Censored is a Left-leaning organization," said Dr. Phillips. "Nothing could be further from the truth. Why stories about the powerful in government and big business are left leaning is beyond our understanding. It seems that this is just good journalism-the journalism that is missing in the corporate media-it could just as well be middle-leaning journalism or right-leaning journalism. Project Censored supports the news stories that hold the powerful in society accountable for their decisions and actions, which is what a free press is supposed to do." Phillips added. Phillips was the 2009 recipient of the Dallas Smythe Award from the Union for Democratic Communications.

Chapters in Censored 2010 include topics on the Truth Emergency in the US, the hyperreality of television news, election fraud in 2008, issues from the World Water Forum, human trafficking, Lesbian and Gay standpoint films, and the importance of expanding investigative research to support media democracy. Authors of these chapters include academics and media researchers Brad Friedman, Aashika Damodor, Andrew Roth, James Dean and Andrew Hobbs.

Project Censored, Sonoma State University
707-664-2500, censored@sonoma.edu
Ben Frymer, Director Project Censored, bfrymer@gmail.com
Contact Censored 2010 Editors for Interviews and Updates
Peter Phillips, 707-664-2588, peter.phillips@sonoma.edu
Mickey Huff, 510-798-6251, mickeyhuff@mac.com

Read article »

CAPITALISM - a Love Story

Of course - I'm a Capitalist so I'm looking forward to seeing this film! Michael Moore - true to his style - hides none of the dirty side of Capitalism. Economic systems are much like religion - major distortions of the original message and concept come about over time. Stockbrokers, like the Catholic Church and other organized religions that make it their mission to enforce their own agenda, turn the original message into something self-serving, then spread it around for their own gain. Thank you Michael for being an honest Messenger - Vesta

from Michael Moore CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY

The time has arrived for, as Time magazine called it, my "magnum opus." I only had a year of Latin when I was in high school, so I'm not quite sure what that means, but I think it's good. I've spent nearly two years on this new movie, "Capitalism: A Love Story," and have poured my heart and soul into this project. Many early critics and viewers have called it my "best film yet." That's a hard call for me to make as I'm proud of all of my films -- but I will tell you this: What you are about to see in "Capitalism" is going to stun you. It's going to make some of you angry and I believe it's going to give most of you a new sense of hope that we are going to turn the sick and twisted mess made by the last president around. Oh, and you're going to have a good laugh at the expense of all the banking and corporate criminals who've made out like bandits in the past year. I'm gonna show you the stuff the nightly news will rarely show you. Ever meet a pilot for American Airlines on food stamps because his pay's been cut so low? Ever meet a judge who gets kickbacks for sending innocent kids to a private prison? Ever meet someone from the Wall Street Journal who bluntly states on camera that he doesn't much care for democracy and that capitalism should be our only ruling concern?

You'll meet all these guys in "Capitalism." You'll also meet a whistleblower who, with documents in hand, tells us about the million-dollar-plus sweetheart loans he approved for the head of Senate Banking Committee -- the very committee that was supposed to be regulating his lending institution! You'll hear from a bank regulator why Timothy Geithner has no business being our Treasury Secretary. And you'll learn, from the woman who heads up the congressional commission charged with keeping an eye on the bailout money, how Alan Greenspan & Co. schemed and connived the public into putting up their inflated valued homes as collateral -- thus causing the biggest foreclosure epidemic in our history. There is now a foreclosure filed in the U.S. once every seven-and-half SECONDS. None of this is an accident, and I name the names others seem to be afraid to name, the men who have ransacked the pensions of working people and plundered the future of our kids and grandkids. Somehow they thought they were going to get away with this, that we'd believe their Big Lie that this crash was caused by a bunch of low-income people who took out loans they couldn't afford. Much of the mainstream media bought this storyline. No wonder Wall Street thought they could pull this off.

Jeez, I guess they forgot about me and my crew. You'd think we would've made a better impression on these wealthy thieves by now. Guess not. So here we come! It's all there, up on the silver screen, two hours of a tragicomedy crime story starring a bunch of vampires who just weren't satisfied with simply destroying Flint, Michigan -- they had to try and see if they could take down the whole damn country. So come see this cops and robbers movie! The robbers this time wear suits and ties, and the cops -- well, if you're willing to accept a guy in a ballcap with a high school education as a stand-in until the real deal shows up to haul 'em away, then I humbly request your presence at your local cinema this weekend in New York and Los Angeles (and next Friday, October 2nd, all across America). ... And the amazing Jay Leno. This man called me after seeing the movie and asked me to be his only in-studio guest on the second night of his new prime-time show. I said, "Jay, shouldn't you be thinking of your ratings in the first week of the show? Are you sure you didn't misdial Tom Hanks' number (the area code where I live is 231; 213 is LA)?" He told me he was profoundly moved by this film. So I was the guest on his second show, and he told all of America it was my "best film" and to please go see "Capitalism: A Love Story." That was Jay Leno saying that, not Noam Chomsky or Jane Fonda (both of whom I love dearly). The audience responded enthusiastically and, after 20 years of filmmaking, it was a moment where I crossed over deep into the mainstream of middle America. Jay's bosses at General Electric musta been... well, let's just say I hope they didn't place a reprimand in his permanent record. He's one helluva guy (and following the example he set with his free concerts for the unemployed in Michigan and Ohio last spring, I've gotten permission from the studio to do the same with my film in ten of the hardest-hit cities in the U.S. next week).

Thanks everyone -- and see you at the movies!
Yours, Michael Moore MMFlint@aol.com

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

For Those of You on Your Way to Church This Morning ...a note from Michael Moore

Sunday, October 4th, 2009

Friends,

I'd like to have a word with those of you who call yourselves Christians (Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Bill Maherists, etc. can read along, too, as much of what I have to say, I'm sure, can be applied to your own spiritual/ethical values).

In my new film I speak for the first time in one of my movies about my own spiritual beliefs. I have always believed that one's religious leanings are deeply personal and should be kept private. After all, we've heard enough yammerin' in the past three decades about how one should "behave," and I have to say I'm pretty burned out on pieties and platitudes considering we are a violent nation who invades other countries and punishes our own for having the audacity to fall on hard times.

I'm also against any proselytizing; I certainly don't want you to join anything I belong to. Also, as a Catholic, I have much to say about the Church as an institution, but I'll leave that for another day (or movie).

Amidst all the Wall Street bad guys and corrupt members of Congress exposed in "Capitalism: A Love Story," I pose a simple question in the movie: "Is capitalism a sin?" I go on to ask, "Would Jesus be a capitalist?" Would he belong to a hedge fund? Would he sell short? Would he approve of a system that has allowed the richest 1% to have more financial wealth than the 95% under them combined?

I have come to believe that there is no getting around the fact that capitalism is opposite everything that Jesus (and Moses and Mohammed and Buddha) taught. All the great religions are clear about one thing: It is evil to take the majority of the pie and leave what's left for everyone to fight over. Jesus said that the rich man would have a very hard time getting into heaven. He told us that we had to be our brother's and sister's keepers and that the riches that did exist were to be divided fairly. He said that if you failed to house the homeless and feed the hungry, you'd have a hard time finding the pin code to the pearly gates.

I guess that's bad news for us Americans. Here's how we define "Blessed Are the Poor": We now have the highest unemployment rate since 1983. There's a foreclosure filing once every 7.5 seconds. 14,000 people every day lose their health insurance.

At the same time, Wall Street bankers ("Blessed Are the Wealthy"?) are amassing more and more loot -- and they do their best to pay little or no income tax (last year Goldman Sachs' tax rate was a mere 1%!). Would Jesus approve of this? If not, why do we let such an evil system continue? It doesn't seem you can call yourself a Capitalist AND a Christian -- because you cannot love your money AND love your neighbor when you are denying your neighbor the ability to see a doctor just so you can have a better bottom line. That's called "immoral" -- and you are committing a sin when you benefit at the expense of others.

When you are in church this morning, please think about this. I am asking you to allow your "better angels" to come forward. And if you are among the millions of Americans who are struggling to make it from week to week, please know that I promise to do what I can to stop this evil -- and I hope you'll join me in not giving up until everyone has a seat at the table.

Thanks for listening. I'm off to Mass in a few hours. I'll be sure to ask the priest if he thinks J.C. deals in derivatives or credit default swaps. I mean, after all, he must've been good at math. How else did he divide up two loaves of bread and five pieces of fish equally amongst 5,000 people? Either he was the first socialist or his disciples were really bad at packing lunch. Or both.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
http://www.michaelmoore.com/

Read article »

Securitization of Life Insurance - Letter to Editor

RESPONSE to NY Times lead stories -

Back to Business: Wall Street Pursues Profit in Bundles of Life Insurance
By JENNY ANDERSON

and

Surge in Homeless Children Strains School Districts
By ERIK ECKHOLM

Budget-battered school districts must try to salvage education for more than one million children whose lives are filled with insecurity and turmoil.

Dear Editor,
Greetings!

The Spiritual Potential of Hyper-Capital
In today’s NY Times lead article it was said that, “Goldman Sachs has developed a tradable index of life settlements, enabling investors to bet on whether people will live longer than expected or die sooner than planned.” The two lead articles, and even the third, inspired me to contemplate the antipode of old age, youth. We can just as easily securitize all the homeless school children mentioned in the second lead article, after all, children are the best investment there is for a civilized society.

Let’s take the ultimate step in creating exotically profitable financial ‘products’ – securitization of the one million homeless school children in America. They can be packaged into different talent asset classes, acquire a rating and risk assessment parameters, while being layered into multiple bundles of a 100,000 homeless school children in each. The raised capital would then be used to truly ‘invest’ in the original sense of the word, in the finest schools, food, shelter, clothing, wellness centers, cultural, research and development activity, all in a clean safe environment.

The return on investment would increase as the talents and destinies of each one were to become manifest in some new technology, renewable energy breakthrough or cure for cancer, etc.. It could be worth a billion, no, a trillion dollars. Just think of the additional savings implied by actualized homeless children not incarcerated, intoxicated, or in ill health.
Come to think of it, some things are just priceless – like all the children in the world and their potential as contributing creative human beings if abundantly invested in.

The fortunate talents of many can carry the longer term slower developing homeless school children and their friends. The returns for share holders could be enormous according to youth development bank advocates at Silverman Sachs and their senior advisor, 14 year old financial mathematics genius, Max Well.

As a fundamental principle of Associative Economics, we know that capital, by itself, can never create new economic value for it must be put into the path of an imaginative, innovative and initiative taking human being. (www.cfae.biz). One with honed talents, capacities and skills will be fruitful, while a deprived soul will wither with out continuous stream of capital. The young entrepreneur will be able to provide a means for meeting human needs in the world, reciprocally. The so called ‘Markets’ are desperate to find more and more rarified methods of artificially preserving sterile capital. The search for the most ‘economic’ thing to do with the large pools of excess capital in the world has led to the most potentially deleterious derivative devised – securitization of life insurance policies of the most infirmed seniors. Wall street banks are trolling for the next new idea to make money. Let’s invest and have a shared faith in the future – all the children.

Daniel Osmer, Sebastopol
Ambassador for Youth Science & Real Estate professional

The Misuse of Capital:

The world wide pressure for individual’s, companies, and charities to expect ever increasing returns on investments spawned the ingenious securitization and traunching of risky mortgages. Why not do the same for life insurance policies of the infirmed? The sooner a cashed out senior dies, the better the return on investment. This “You bet your life” is the new ‘securitization of early death’, and joins an array of products from credit-default swaps to structured investment vehicles and collateralized debt obligations that proved to be flimsier than the computers calculated.

Read article »

Women in Combat - How Times have Changed

I'm passing on this link to the New York Times article on women in military combat.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/us/16women.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

Why? It's change. When I was this age (late 60s) our war was Vietnam and women were not allowed to fight - or do anything dangerous - like get drafted! It seemed unfair at the time even though I was grateful.

I had gone from a young girl wanting to be an Air Force pilot to a young woman being disgusted by violence and war. I didn't want to be drafted, but I felt for my fellow men who had no choice.

It was unfair then and it is unfair now, so it's good to see women working alongside men in any field - even war. These are volunteers - not draftees. They enlist because they want to do this. How wonderful that they can. My young girl dreams didn't consider that the Air Force wouldn't allow me to fly a plane because I was female. I didn't learn that until later and by that time I didn't want to anymore.

Change is good.

Perhaps some day there will be no more war. That would be a change this planet would find beneficial!

This is series of articles in the New York Times. One story after another with commentary and political as well as social perspective - women telling their stories - people commenting on them, etc. The good thing about going to the page is that there are related articles and information on the site that you might find interesting.

http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=Women+in+Combat&srchst=cse

The string is too long for my site - but there is much to learn.

Read article »

Marriage - a Matter of Equal Rights for ALL

By Vesta Copestakes

This battle for Human Rights gets weary, like so many other battles for Human Rights. To have one segment of the human population tell another segment that they are not worthy of sharing the same rights is beyond understanding. But so many aspects of life are beyond understanding. Love seems so simple, so pure, and so much a part of everyday life. How can it be a battleground?

Protect Our Families
The argument that by denying the rights of marriage to gay and lesbian members of our family will protect our children, and therefore our families, is perhaps the least understandable argument of all. What part of commitment to love and a sense of belonging is dangerous to children?

Every parent knows the desire to protect our children and every parent knows that it's impossible on a grand scale. Our children are separate from us. They make their own decisions right from the start and they pay consequences for those decisions and therefore learn from them. Being homosexual has been proven to NOT be a decision. It's a BIOLOGICAL FACT.

Yes, there are some people - more women then men - who choose to love someone of the same sex out of frustration and anger as much as out of love. But even those people have to feel love in order to cross the boundaries between lust and love, between dating and commitment.

Learning that homosexual couples have sex is not enough to make a person homosexual. They either are or are not. So the argument that same sex relationships will be taught in our schools is ludicrous. Sex is taught in our schools only with the permission of parents. If parents don't want their children to lean about sex at school all they have to do is fill out a form and the kid won't be in that class.

But life - that's another issue entirely. How do you shelter a child from reading the newspaper, watching television or engaging in conversations? You don't. At some point in a child's life they will learn that people of the same sex fall in love just like heterosexuals. Love is love…period. Attraction brings people together, and from all the statistics on marriage, homosexuals have a much better commitment history than heterosexuals - by far! Peraps it's because they have fought such a hard battle just to love in the open that when they make the commitment, they do it with more conviction than male/female couples.

A Matter of Time
I was encouraged to see that Marie Osborn has came out in favor of same sex love. Her daughter or sister - or someone in her family, is homosexual. That's a real challenge for Mormons because homosexuality is, in essence, against their religion. Pity. They have such large families. Someone is bound to be homosexual. Do they reject each family member who is? Cast them out into the world as rejected? If religion is about strength of families and homophobia is as well, then this is not very comforting.

I read that Gavin Newsom's father, a judge and Catholic, has been profoundly against homosexual relationships and same sex marriage. I'm pretty certain he didn't raise Gavin with the concept that he should grow up to be a leader in the same sex marriage revolution. But even this man finally came to believe that he was wrong. Was it the inlfluence of son on father or just a matter of time.

Time is always on our side. Take any subject where people are filled with hate, rage, etc. and over time, sometimes hundreds of years, minds change. Experience is the great teacher. In this case sooner or later the haters will love someone who is homosexual. Not sexual love - family love. It makes them take a differnt look. Some do. Some don't. But the more people look at other people in terms of our similarities and less in term of differences, the more there is hope that marriage will be free to everyone who loves. Laws chnaged to allow differnt races to marry. Laws will change to allow different sexes to marry.

We still have a lot of work to do to bring peace to our families - and ultimately to our planet.

Read article »

Protecting Water & Environment Rights with Democracy

Promising signs of Democracy

Shapleigh, Maine gave the natural environment rights. Arcata and Point Arena passed a similarly intentioned resolution in 2004 (link) which is not legally binding.
This could be a concept whose time has come!
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/arcata_pointarena_resolutions.html

Maine Town Passes Ordinance
Asserting Local Self-Governance
and Stripping Corporate Personhood

Sun, 2009-03-01 18:08.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/40335

Today the citizens of Shapleigh, Maine voted at a special town meeting to pass a groundbreaking Rights-Based Ordinance, 114 for and 66 against. This revolutionary ordinance give its citizens the right to local self-governance and gives rights to ecosystems but denies the rights of personhood to corporations. This ordinance allows the citizens to protect their groundwater resources, putting it in a common trust to be used for the benefit of its residents.

Shapleigh is the first community in Maine to pass such an ordinance, which extends rights to nature, however, the Ordinance Review Committee in Wells, Maine is considering passing one in their town. These communities have been under attack by Nestle Waters, N.A., a multi-national water miner that sells bottled water under such labels as Poland Springs.

Communities have opposed the expansion by Nestle Waters, but the corporation will not take no for an answer. The town of Fryeburg, Maine has been in litigation with Nestle for six years. Nestle wants to expand and the town's people say no to the tanker trunk traffic which has disrupted their quiet scenic beauty, so Nestle's tactic is to wear them down, and break their bank.

Nestle is the world's largest food and beverage company and has very deep pockets. However, we won't back down, we are the stewards of this most precious resource water, and we want to protect it for future generations.

Activists in Maine are well aware that the Nestle Corporation is not just interested in expanding for the purpose of filling their Poland Springs bottles today, they are interested in the control of Maine's abundant water resources for the future. They are expanding in many parts of this country from McCloud, California to Maine. Nestle is positioning themselves to capitalize on the emerging crisis of global water scarcity.

The right to water is a social justice issue and we believe that it should not be sold to those who can afford it, leaving the world's poorest citizens thirsty. Citizens will do a much better job of protecting this resource than a for-profit corporation.

The concept of a rights-based ordinance was pioneered by environmental attorney Thomas Linzey, founder of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund of Gettysburg, PA. Linzey has assisted the town of Barnstead, New Hampshire with their rights-based ordinance, which was passed in 2006 and with another in Nottingham, New Hampshire, which passed in 2008.

To date there have been no legal challenges to these ordinances. Linzey also crafted Ecuador's new Constitution, which also gives the ecosystem rights. Ecuador is the first country in the world to protect its natural resources from corporate exploitation.

Activists have learned the hard way that trying to protect their communities and the environment by going the route of fighting a typical regulatory ordinance, which is written by corporate lobbyists, will fail to protect communities from harms done.

The multi-national corporation's allegiance is never to the communities where they do business, as that could conflict with their fiduciary responsibility to make a profit for stockholders.

People throughout the country are saying "enough is enough, large corporations have too much power." Constitutional Rights were granted to corporations from the bench in the 1800's and it is time to rectify a wrong! People are saying let's dismantle the neo-colonial corporate power by starting with their right to personhood.

In Maine, we are tired of Nestle behaving as if they are a Colonial power with a right to our water resources. We decided that we will behave as if we have the power and ignore the naysayers who said that people will never vote to take rights away from corporations or to give rights to nature. We want to encourage other communities join us. The time is now!

Copies of the The Shapleigh, Maine Town Warrant calling for a special town meeting and The Shapleigh Water Rights and Local Self-Government Warrant are available from the Contact Person, below.

For more information on attorney Thomas Linzey and the Community Environmental Defense Fund, please visit: http://www.celdf.org

For more information about the battle to protect ground water in communities in Maine, please visit: www.soh2o.org . Click on the LEGISLATION tab and go to ORDINANCES to read the important new Shapleigh ordinance.

CONTACT PERSON: Jamilla El-Shafei Save Our Water steering committee member and organizer steering committee member of the Maine Water Allies (state-wide coalition) 603.969.8426 jamillaelshafei@gmail.com

Read article »

REAL Change - Health Care, Taxes, Energy, Education, Regulations

Vesta: I hope you have the courage to read and print my comments. If I sound angry, it is because I AM. REAL CHANGE means real change coming out of my pocket going into people like yours. - T. Mark Fay

Well, Mark - with a challenge like that - how could I resist! I can't imagine much money will make it into my pockets from political change - but I can hope I guess! I certainly work hard for what I earn! Here ya go Mark.

1.) Health CARE is not broken; we have the best system in the world. Ask people from Canada who come here to get their MRIs that they would wait 6 months for. The problem is Health INSURANCE, and having the government take over the system will make going to your doctor feel like getting your driver's license renewed. Come on, what government service is done better then the private sector? People like you just want people like me to pay for your medical treatment. How is that good for you or me - have you no self respect?

Aren't you the same blog that agonized over Bush's wiretaps of terrorists? And you want Obama having access to your pap smear?

2.) Tax rates have not been reduced! The tax tables have not been changed! How can you reduce taxes on people when THEY HAVE PAID NO TAXES?

You are talking about a one time tax rebate that is a welfare payment that amounts to about $15 per week - and it is taxable income! And, there is no way even I and the other 2% ers, even if you take every dime I make, can pay for all of this spending. Your taxes are going up - or haven't you noticed that every promise Obama makes comes with an expiration date? "I'll only take government campaign financing"; "No lobbyists in my administration"; on and on. Get yourself a calculator and do some math - he'll be coming for the middle classes' cash next. There's no other way.

3.) The only economical clean energy is nuclear and it is no where in this plan. You'll need to suspend a couple of Newton's laws or impose a huge series of taxes on energy to make wind and solar viable. These jobs may not be outsourced but they are not sustainable because the underlying technology is not cost effective without huge cash transfers to them.

4.) When will any of you people say "Thank you George Bush"?

5.) Taxes went DOWN for all people who pay taxes under the Bush tax cuts. Does the truth even matter to you? The average family making $60K a year has some $2,000 more in their pockets annually. Also, since you are so big on the word "progressive", I and and the other rich's share of taxes went UP. Do you have any idea what percent of the income taxes we pay? The top 1% pay 39%, up from 37% when Bush took office. The truth is that you are taking money from me to give to you - that's what you mean by "strengthening the middle class". Why don't you stop blogging and get second job - I work 65 hours a week, maybe you could move up from 30.

6.) Obama's cap and trade plan will crush all of us under oil and gas taxes. He has made it his mission to drive up all energy prices to make the wind and solar boondoggles "affordable". Do you know that the government already makes twice as much money on gas taxes then the oil companies do in profit?

7.) Why can't the liberal colleges reduce their tuitions? Harvard for example has a $60 Billion endowment. All the tuitions they collect in a year are only $30 Million. They could GIVE THEIR EDUCATION AWAY FOR FREE if they could just make a 5% profit on the endowment. Why must you always reach for my wallet through the strong arm of government - Harvard is a TAX FREE institution!

8.) You will be Waiting for Godot for the economy to recover. It is people like me that move this economy and there is no way I am going to continue to work the 65 hours so I can feed your kids, educate you, pay for your medical care, subsidize low income women's abortions and birth control pills, and support unnecessary fees on energy.

Even the Associated Press has said the numbers don't add up. Do you remember stagflation under Jimmy Carter? You think we had malaise then... By the way, have you heard of Johnson's War on Poverty? Carter's move to improve Human Rights? These miserable failures are what your side will be repeating under Obama. Why don't you go back and read some of Martin Luther King's speeches, or John Kennedy's. It is through liberty, free markets and free people, that our country will prosper, not through socialism which HAS FAILED EVERY WHERE IT HAS BEEN TRIED.

9.) Have you heard of Sarbanes Oxley? Have you heard of Grahm Leach Bliley? Have you heard of McCain Feingold, for crying out loud? No additional amount of regulation would have prevented these problems. You are fooling yourself to think government can fix the problems they are causing. Read Ayn Rand.

10.) He only won 54% of the vote, and did he tell it to us straight in the campaign? Does he stick to his promises or do they all have expiration dates?

I intend to follow up with you in four years to see which one of us is right. I hope you will have the integrity at that time to look at the facts, and have stopped drinking - and passing out - the Kool Aid.

T. Mark Fay
Beleagured Taxpayer

Read article »

Obama's Economic Plan Needs Our Support

Want to see what change looks like? Real change?

Well, here it is. Last week, President Obama unveiled his budget—his blueprint for America—and it's ambitious, amazing, and unapologetically progressive. As Paul Krugman said, it will set America on a "fundamentally new course."-1 - these numbers refer to resources for this information listed below.

President Obama called his budget "a threat to the status quo," and trust me, the status quo noticed. Oil companies, big banks and insurance companies are already mobilizing to stop it.-2

Unfortunately, most folks don't realize how far-reaching and progressive the plan is—that's where we all come in.

Here are 10 really incredible things about Obama's plan. Check them out and then send them on to your friends and family so that millions of people will have the information they need to fight to make this vision a reality.

10 things you should know about Obama's plan (but probably don't)

The plan:

1. Makes a $634 billion down payment on fixing health care that will go a long way toward paying for a more efficient, more affordable health care system that covers every single American. -3

2. Reduces taxes for 95% of working Americans. And if your family makes less than $250,000, your taxes won't go up one dime. -4

3. Invests more than $100 billion in clean energy technology, creating millions of green jobs that can never be outsourced. -5

4. Brings our troops home from Iraq on a firm timetable, finally bringing the war to a close—and freeing up almost ten billion dollars a month for domestic priorities. -6

5. Reverses growing income inequality. The plan lets the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire and focuses on strengthening the middle class. -7

6. Closes multi-billion-dollar tax loopholes for big oil companies. -8

7. Increases grants to help families pay for college—the largest increase ever. -9

8. Halves the deficit by 2013. President Obama inherited a legacy of huge deficits and an economy in shambles, but his plan brings the deficit under control as soon as the economy begins to recover. -10

9. Dramatically increases funding for the SEC and the CFTC—the agencies that police Wall Street. -11

10. Tells it straight. For years, budgets have used accounting tricks to hide the real costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush tax cuts, and too many other programs. Obama's budget gets rid of the smokescreens and lays out what America's priorities are, what they cost, and how we're going to pay for them. - 12

This is the change we voted for.
President Obama has done his part, now we need to do ours.

P.S. Turns out there are way more than 10 amazing things in Obama's budget and we couldn't resist sharing just a few more.

1. Stops unnecessary government subsidies to big banks, health insurance companies and big agribusinesses. -13,14,15

2. Expands access to early childhood education and improves schools by investing in programs that make sure every child has a qualified, strong teacher. -16

3. Negotiates for better prescription drug prices using Medicaid's tremendous bargaining power. -17

4. Expands access to family planning for low-income women. -18

5. Caps the pollution that causes global warming, and makes polluters pay to support clean energy innovation. -19

Sources:

1. "Climate of Change," The New York Times, February 27, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/opinion/27krugman.html?em

2. "Obama Calls His Budget Sweeping, Needed Change," The New York Times, February 28, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51201&id=15687-3123214-yBHNJBx&t=2

3. "Obama Offers Broad Plan to Revamp Health Care," The New York Times, February 26, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51202&id=15687-3123214-yBHNJBx&t=3

4. "Obama Expects Fight Over $3.55 Trillion Budget Plan," Bloomberg News, February 28, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51203&id=15687-3123214-yBHNJBx&t=4

5. "Energy Budget Is Sunlight After Eight Years of Darkness," Center for American Progress, February 26, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51204&id=15687-3123214-yBHNJBx&t=5

6. "The Economic Cost of War in Iraq and Afghanistan," The New York Times, March 1, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/weekinreview/01glanz.html

7. "Tax Cuts," The New York Times, February 26, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/washington/27web-tax.html

8. "Energy Budget Is Sunlight After Eight Years of Darkness," Center for American Progress, February 26, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51204&id=15687-3123214-yBHNJBx&t=6

9. "Student Loans," The New York Times, February 26, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/washington/27web-edu.html

10. "Obama unveils budget blueprint," CNN, February 26, 2009
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/26/budget/

11. "Obama budget would boost SEC, CFTC, FBI," Reuters, February 26, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51205&id=15687-3123214-yBHNJBx&t=7

12. "Obama's budget," Los Angeles Times, February 27, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51206&id=15687-3123214-yBHNJBx&t=8

13. "Student Loans," The New York Times, February 26, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/washington/27web-edu.html

14. "Health Insurance Stocks Dive on Medicare Advantage Cuts," The Wall Street Journal, February 26, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51207&id=15687-3123214-yBHNJBx&t=9

15. "Agriculture," The New York Times, February 26, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/washington/27web-agri.html

16. "Investing Wisely in Our Children," Center for American Progress, February 26, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51208&id=15687-3123214-yBHNJBx&t=10

17. "Obama Offers Broad Plan to Revamp Health Care," The New York Times, February 26, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51202&id=15687-3123214-yBHNJBx&t=11

18. "Obama Offers Broad Plan to Revamp Health Care," The New York Times, February 26, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51202&id=15687-3123214-yBHNJBx&t=12

19. "Setting 'Green' Goals," The New York Times, February 26, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51209&id=15687-3123214-yBHNJBx&t=13


Can you pass this on to your personal network and then click here to let us know how many people you told, so we can track our impact together:

http://pol.moveon.org/budget10/?id=15687-3123214-yBHNJBx&t=1

Thanks for all you do.
–Daniel, Tanya, Peter, Justin and the rest of the team
www.moveon.org

PS: I'm passing this information on to WCG Extra! readers because I feel it's important to be informed about our economy. Whether you agree or not, information and education is key to our survival. if you don't know about a subject you have no influence or control over it. The Economy impacts our lives on every level! - Vesta

Read article »

Voter Guide to Water Issues

Here's a look at the stands of presidential candidates on water issues.
- Jane Nielson, Water Coalition, Sebastopol

Obama vs. McCain: Progressive Voter Guide to Water Issues

See how Obama and McCain compare on eight water issues from privatization to pollution.

Download this Voter Guide as a .PDF, plus connecting links at:
http://www.alternet.org/water/102091?page=entire

Water is our most important resource and is necessary to sustain life on this planet. Currently we face a water crisis that encompasses water quantity, quality and infrastructure. More and more states are finding they are running short on drinking water, with an estimated 36 states facing scarcity in the next 10 years. This shortfall has been coupled by a 66 percent drop in federal funding in the last 15 years to help states protect their water. As a result, private companies are swooping in to buy public water systems, threatening the democratic control of water and causing rates to increase and services to diminish.

Despite these vast problems, water issues have largely been absent from the public debate and have barely been mentioned by either the Obama or the McCain campaigns. While their energy policies are hotly debated, little is known about where the candidates stand on protecting clean water and what they will do to face a water crisis in the United States and abroad.

We've checked their voting records, and the Obama campaign responded to our inquiries on his water policies. But there are still significant gaps in what the public needs to know about how these candidates are planning to help protect our most important resource. Below is a primer to get your feet wet, as we continue to press both the Obama and McCain camps for more answers.

1. SCARCITY

Thirty-six U.S. states are facing water stress and scarcity in the coming decade, with Western states such as California, New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada already experiencing water stress. Last year, the southeast, including the Atlanta area, nearly ran out of drinking water completely.
* Solution: We need to cut down on our consumption of water and employ conservation practices in our homes as well as in industry and agriculture. We need public education about conservation practices, incentives for reducing consumption and increasing efficiency, and new regulations for agriculture and industry. We also need regulations to protect against the pollution and overpumping of groundwater.

* Obama's position: Obama says he believes we need to take preparatory measures to ensureour water supplies are used efficiently and equitably. He supports the development of a national water conservation strategy, in coordination with states and municipalities. He plans to create policies to encourage communities to develop voluntary water banks, wastewater treatment and other market-based measures. He will also work to improve technology for water conservation and efficiency, and remove institutional barriers to increase cooperation and collaboration among federal, state and private organizations. Obama wants to help farmers deploy water conservation measures, including irrigation techniques that save energy and water and small reservoirs that farmers can use to capture rainfall.

* McCain's position: While in Congress, McCain cast 10 votes against clean water, which also were against drinking water protection and enforcement, controlling microbes in water, and money for water pollution control.

* Learn more: OAEC's WATER Institute, Pacific Institute, Global Water Policy Project

2. POLLUTION

Our waterways are being polluted by industrial, agricultural and domestic runoff, as well as sewage overflows and untreated waste.
* Solution: Support community right-to-know legislation that warns people when sewage is dumped into waterways. Begin work with governments, developers and homeowners to implement new storm water management techniques, natural water treatment systems, and protection of wetlands to reduce pollutants and protect watersheds.

* Obama's position: Obama introduced legislation to provide $37.5 million over five years for drinking water systems to upgrade their monitoring and security efforts. He voted yes on an amendment that would include $900 million over six years to manage flooding and pollution caused by runoff from roads and highways.

* McCain's position: While in Congress, McCain supported delaying funds for leaking underground storage tanks and allowing municipalities to set their own standards for toxic waste.

* Learn more: American Rivers, OEAC'S WATER Institute, Riverkeeper


3. PRIVATIZATION

Municipal water supplies are being targeted by for-profit companies for privatization because federal funding to help support public water systems has fallen drastically in the last few decades. Unfortunately, privatization of public water has been disastrous: Studies show that under privatization, rates go up and services go down. Private companies that care only about their bottom line are also more interested in having people use more water, instead of conserving, which is clearly problematic as areas run short on water.
* Solution: We need a clean water trust fund that is a dedicated source of money from the federal government to protect safe drinking water.
* Obama's position: Obama's campaign says he will "work with Congress, governors and clean water experts across the nation to determine the best way to protect our water." But he has not taken a position on a federal trust for clean water.

* McCain's position: McCain has taken no known position on the issue.

* Learn more: Food and Water Watch, Corporate Accountability International, Polaris Institute


4. BOTTLED WATER

Growing bottled water consumption is causing environmental harm from the production and shipping of, as well as the waste from, plastic bottles. Two of the leading companies pushing their bottled water, which is really repackaged tap water, are Coke and Pepsi. Other companies, like Nestle, are mining groundwater and spring water from rural communities for bottled water, causing ecological damage.
* Solution: Stop drinking bottled water at home and on the go. Work to end bottled water contracts for cities, restaurants and businesses and at events. Support the rights of communities to prevent bottled water companies from mining rural groundwater and spring water sources.
* Obama's position: Many mayors have canceled their cities' bottled water contracts to promote public water systems and save taxpayer money. Obama "defers to municipalities' and states' authority to determine the best policy for local governments" but has not offered any endorsement of canceling bottled water contracts nor proposed any plan to do so at the federal level.

* McCain's position: McCain has taken no known position on the issue.

* Learn more: Food and Water Watch, Corporate Accountability International, Polaris Institute


5. RIGHT TO WATER

There is a growing global struggle between those who see water as a commodity and those who see water as a part of the public trust to be shared by everyone.
* Solution: Support a United Nations treaty that recognizes the right to water internationally and to have water declared a human right so that it cannot be bought and sold for profit.
* Obama's position: Obama believes access to clean, fresh water for all must be a critical priority for international development organizations and national governments, and for U.S. overseas assistance policy, but he has not stated whether he would support a UN treaty to ensure clean water for everyone.
* McCain's position: McCain has taken no known position on the issue.

* Learn more: Blue Planet Project, Right to Water, Food and Water Watch

6. CLEAN WATER

The Clean Water Act of 1977 was amended in 1992 to allow the "fills" from mountaintop removal (MTR) mining to be dumped onto waterways, burying them with debris and chemicals, contaminating drinking water and destroying watersheds.

* Solution: Support the passage of the Clean Water Protection Act, HR2169, to protect our waters and end MTR mining, which is devastating communities and watersheds in Appalachia.
* Obama's position: Obama says he will support and sign into law legislation that effectively restores the historical scope of the Clean Water Act and advances environmental protection, community values and public health objectives. But Obama is in favor of so-called "clean coal" and other clean technologies that would continue destructive coal mining practices like MTR.
* McCain's position: McCain has no known position on this legislation but supports furthering coal production, including "clean coal" and coal gasification, which would mean more MTR mining in Appalachia.

* Learn more: Appalachian Voices, Coal River Mountain Watch, ILoveMountains.org


7. CLIMATE CHANGE

Global warming is closely linked with the world's water crisis. Increasing temperatures and changing precipitation patterns are melting glaciers, decreasing snowpack and resulting in less water in streams and rivers that feed drinking water sources and freshwater species.
* Solution: Support the passage of a comprehensive bill on climate change to cut emissions 80 percent by 2050, and push for the United States to actively engage with the international community on solutions.

* Obama's position: Obama supports an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama voted yes on an amendment to the Water Resources Development Act reauthorization bill that would require the Army Corps of Engineers to consider the long- and short-term effects of global climate change and to use the best available modern climate science in planning water projects.
* McCain's position: McCain supports a 60 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. McCain did not show up to vote for an amendment to the Water Resources Development Act reauthorization bill that would require the Army Corps of Engineers to consider the long- and short-term effects of global climate change and to use the best available modern climate science in planning water projects.

* Learn more: 1Sky, 350.org, Rainforest Action Network


8. OCEANS

The health of our oceans is threatened by a number of factors. There is an increase in oxygen-free "dead zones," where runoff from fertilizers, industrial agriculture and fossil fuels is killing huge swaths of sea life. Poor fisheries management has resulted in one-quarter of fish stocks being overfished; another 50 percent are fished to full capacity. And our oceans have become a dumping ground: A "plastic soup" of waste floating in the Pacific Ocean is twice the size of the continental United States and growing.

* Solution: We need to reduce and more efficiently use fertilizer, prevent human and animal waste from entering rivers, replant vegetation on riverbanks and restore wetlands. We also need to reduce nitrogen emissions from vehicles and factories, develop alternative energy sources not based on fossil fuels, and ensure that the National Marines Fisheries Service and other regional councils comply with federal laws protecting marine species.

* Obama's position: Obama voted for an amendment that would include $900 million for flood management and pollution caused by runoff from roads.

* McCain's position: McCain has taken no known position on the issue.

* Learn more: Pew Charitable Trusts, Ocean Conservancy, Oceana

Read article »

Politics: the Will to Serve Others

Brave People Run for Public Office

Whether we're talking about the Presidential campaign or the fight for a seat on the Board of Supervisors of Sonoma County, we're looking at, learning about, and judging individuals who have a desire to serve our community. That fact gets lost as we examine every detail of their lives. When you get a mailer full of venom on a candidate, does it make you feel impelled to run for office in the future? Or does it make you feel vulnerable - that your life could never hold up to that level of examination.

Probably the latter…

As I watch John McCain and Sarah Palin rip Barrack Obama apart for the people he spends time with - for his middle name that he did not choose, for imagined horrors that have no basis in truth, I try to imagine surviving those kind of personal assaults. How strong does an individual need to be - how confident - to brush those comments aside and face voters with the truth of who he is and why he wants to serve our county?

Serve our Country.

For some, it is justified to believe that people run for office because they seek power. It seems like an overwhelming level of responsibility just for power, but to each his/her own. There is power in leadership. In fact, not just the power of the person holding the office - but also the power of the people who helped him/her get there. Not everyone has the personality to sit through meetings - learn complex subjects, etc. They turn to others for advice. It's the advice-givers who have the power of influence.

But to serve - that I can understand. When people are motivated by their belief that they can do something to make the world a better place, they take on the responsibility of implementing their ideas just to accomplish their goals. These people tend to listen to their own counsel more. It is their personal goals that they focus upon, and those goals are often established through a value system. When they seek advice, they look to people with similar value systems so they can feel secure that the advice fits well with their goals.

I imagine power-seekers seek advice from other power seekers for the same reason - shared goals. But with those shared goals comes shared power. People seeking power often will do so at the expense of others, so sharing power can be risky.

People seeking to make the world a better place tend to be more willing to share, to be considerate of others in the process of accomplishing their goals. Their goals are not self-serving - they are goals to serve others. Very different from power seekers.

When looking in-depth at candidates, I tend to look at their value systems so I can determine if they are seeking office to serve others or to serve their need for power. It's not clear in black and white. That's why we often look to who are the people the candidate spends time with, where do they get their funding, etc. If a candidate has a long voting record, has held office or some public position in the past, we can also look to their record to see the path from which they come. That helps a lot.

Nationally, we can see that John McCain has taken a path and had a long record that shifts to serve his immediate needs, that he has been sited for poor judgment (the Keating Five trials), that he changes his mind to serve his political ambitions, that he is a self-described Maverick who bucks the system when he feels it will serve his goals, that he tends to shoot from the hip in making decisions, etc. He has a long record of experience and voting that we can look at.

Barrack Obama is much younger, but he also has a long record of choices he has made during his 47 years. His choices have been to serve, and to educate himself on how he can serve better. His theory on creating peace and prosperity by helping people at the bottom live more comfortable lives is based on visits around the world, volunteering in communities and working with world leaders who share his goals for peace. Hungry people are angry people. Comfortable people are peaceful people. Money does not trickle down from the wealthy to the poor. Comfort builds up from the bottom. Building foundations that are strong makes for better buildings. It's a metaphor that works across life. So I can look at Obama's life and see that I admire his motivation.

Locally for my Sonoma County district (5th), I see a young man vs. an older woman. It's easy to see that the older woman has spent many years serving her community as a volunteer and environmental activist. She studies hard and makes decisions based upon information. She's not a politician, she's a person who has served one step short of the panel that makes the final decisions. Her goal is to take her knowlege and experience and be part of that final decision-making process. As politics rips her personal life apart, she is vulnerable to attacks because she's a caring person. The attacks are personal because that's where she is weak. Her strengths have always been professional. I can relate to a person who lets her personal life suffer in order to accomplish professional goals.

The young man is so young, he simply doesn't have a record to examine. His life is so short, any personal short-coming can easily be explained away by youth. It takes years to settle into life. So where is vulnerable, is the company he keeps and the people who financially support him. These are choices he has made, so they become valid reflections on who this young man is. There's so little information, it's the company he keeps that has become the source for identifying who is this young man? That's unfortunate because the man himself gets lost in the proccess. Much like the older woman's personal life ends up identifying who she iswhen it's her professional life we need to examine.

What we learn from this is that if we really are to judge a person on their goals and value systems, we need to spend time with them, learn who they are and basically ignore poltical propaganda. Not easy. These people don't have time to become close friends with every voter.

So how do we learn who they are? We can only listen to the words they speak and write. We have to ignore what others say about them and go with what we observe oursleves. Is this a good person? Does this person live their lives to serve others or to accomplish personal goals of power? Does this person feel good to me? Does this person reflect my goals? Are the priorities of this person ones I can respect and trust?

When we mark our ballots we are passing judgement on every person we choose. We put our faith in his/her aiblity to serve our needs - to make decisions based upon study and information, not to serve peronal goals.

In the case of president - I find it easy to vote for the Obama/Biden ticket because I see two people whose lives have been lived to serve others. I see them seek advice from others who also live to serve.

In Sonoma County 5th District, I find it easy to choose the older woman, Rue Furch, because I have watched her serve our county selflessly for many years. I have watched her study and make decisions that have no peronsl benefit to her, but that benefit others and our environment. Her opponemt, Efren Carillio is young enough that I can wait to watch him as he grows into his life. He will be interesting to watch bcause he is intelligent and ambtious. He won't fade away. We'll have opportunities to vote for him in the future. Right now I want someone who knows for herself, what is good for our county - our home. I trust her with my home. That's the bottom line.

I trust Obama and Biden with my beloved country and my values. I trust Rue Furch with making decisions that will serve our community. I trust people who are so motivated to serve us that they are willing to run through the horrible gauntlet that is poltics. Very sad. I wonder how many good people just don't have the strength to takes this path to a job?

Read article »

Budget Bailout & Your Credit

It’s not Just about Wall Street How the Housing Slump Affected Your Credit

By Jim Maresca

Wall Street bail out? As usual, the mainstream media is over simplifying and distorting. This article is also a bit of an oversimplification, but I hope will increase understanding for those who are confused about what is happening in the credit markets.


Here’s how our system works. Banks borrow money from depositors and pay them an interest rate. The banks show these deposits on their financial statements as a LIABILITY.

Banks also lend money to borrowers at an interest rate higher than what they pay to depositors. (That is how they make their money.) Such loans show up on the banks’ financial statements as ASSETS.

To keep the banking system sound, banks are required by the agencies that regulate them to keep assets in appropriate proportion to liabilities and to have primary and secondary sources of repayment. In the case of a home mortgage, the primary source of repayment is the income of the homeowner and the secondary source of repayment is the sale of the mortgaged home, which is the underlying asset serving as collateral.

What has happened in the sub-prime mortgage market is that home buyers were allowed to qualify for mortgages without having to adequately document income. In many cases, these unqualified buyers were induced into their mortgages with initial payments that seemed affordable because they not only did not decrease the principal but did not even cover all the interest. So the total money owed thereby increased every month . The unspoken assumption in the market was that real estate price would only go up, so there was no real risk since the home could always be sold to pay off the loan.

As previously unqualified buyers entered the market and increased demand, the home building industry responded with increased supply.

Then two phenomena began to happen at the same, creating a kind of “financial perfect storm”. First, home prices, which had been rising at an obviously unsustainable rate, began to level and fall. At the same time, the initial rates on the mortgages began to re-set to rates that would pay full interest and fully amortize the principal. That meant monthly payments often doubled or even tripled. When homeowners went to refinance, they found that their loans, which had increased due to the negative amortization of the initial low rates, were now higher than the value of their homes. The disastrous result? They could no longer qualify for a loan, could not sell the home for enough to pay off their loans, and found themselves headed for foreclosure.

Now back to the banks. As long as payments are being made, the loans are carried on the banks’ books at their full value. However, when the loans becomes “non-performing”, they have to be revalued on the banks’ financial statements at the value of the underlying asset, the so-called “mark to market”. Since home prices had dropped the new valuations reduced the banks’ assets.

When the assets (loans) are no longer enough to support the liabilities (deposits) the banks have to increase their cash by either selling stock or borrowing money from other banks. If they are unable to do either, they have to begin calling in their least secured loans such as lines of credit they give to businesses. Those businesses, unable to secure financing, pull their cash out of banks to meet their expenses, thus aggravating the problem still further.

But it gets even more complicated than that. Investment banks developed something called Credit Default Swaps (CDS). They are a kind of insurance in which mortgages are bundled and, in return for regular “insurance” payments, a seller takes on the obligation to buy any defaulted mortgage in the bundle at its full value.

As foreclosed houses entered the market, prices continued to fall, banks continued to have to mark down their assets, meaning they can no longer continue lending. If they had sold CDS’s the problem was even worse as the banks had to buy defaulted mortgages and add those to their books. The books end up out of balance and the bank is not allowed to continue lending. If banks can’t lend, they can’t make money, so the banks become unable to meet their expenses. At that point the regulators come in and either take over the bank (as with Lehman Brothers) or find a solvent bank to buy the insolvent bank (as with Wachovia).

Here’s how this mess trickles down to hurt individuals. Assume you are a home buyer looking for a mortgage or a student looking for a student loan or a small manufacturer needing to buy materials to fill an order that will be paid for when you deliver you product. If no bank is able to lend to you, you’re adversely affected. Even though you did nothing wrong, it’s as if you had no credit at all. The ripple affects us all in the long run. If the unavailability of credit continues for a significant period of time, the whole economy begins to slow down and businesses begin to lay off employees. Then we go into deep recession or depression.

Read article »

REAL Change in Campaign '08

I pulled this essay off a national news web site because I think it has value for many readers. Seth Freeman is a professor of conflict management at New York University's Stern School of Business and Columbia Business School. He's asking us to ‘‘Stop hating the other party.’’ - V

Real change in campaign '08: Stop hating the other party.

By Seth Freeman

As angry and politically active as I am this presidential election, I'm starting to notice a problem as I fight for my side: The more engaged I am and the more the polls seesaw, the more I find I have an ugly desire to see the worst in the other side. The technical term for this condition is hate.

Maybe you've had a bit of the same problem?

Try this experiment: Imagine that last week you read a report that the candidate you oppose did something truly awful – assaulted someone, took a bribe – something like that. The polls swing toward your side. Then, today, you learn it's untrue – the candidate is innocent. How do you feel? Disappointed? I think I know the feeling. It's a bad sign.

Here's why: Hate has the annoying tendency to turn into hypocrisy. I laugh with glee when my side catches the other's lies and follies. To a point, that's healthy and cathartic.

But you don't hear me laughing when the other side returns the favor. Then I discount the point and quietly fume at the attack itself. Don't they understand our side is the good one?

And so it goes: They smear us; we uncover the truth about them. They have corrupt contributors; we're creating a badly needed war chest. Their moral difficulties are untenable; ours, if any, are excusable.

Hate also kills thinking. In 2004, my wife and I did a simple exercise with some of our liberal and conservative friends.

We asked each to imagine seeing their side from the other's perspective. "We're not asking you to agree with them," we said, "we're just asking if you can understand them."

Though our friends were educated, compassionate, and capable of great empathy, they found our request impossible. "I can't," they said. "Maybe I should, but I can't. They're just crazy – or evil." Perhaps you felt that way recently as you watched one of the conventions. "Who are those people?"

Why do politics alienate us? It's true we are more polarized now than we once were, but there never was an idyllic age when politics was kind and gentle. It has always been prone to verbal viciousness, and I think I know one reason why: Physical violence is a no-no.

Politics is a field of battle where bloodshed is discouraged, but much is allowed. At its best, politics can ennoble us; more often, it makes us smaller, and there's nothing new about that. In the 1800 presidential campaign, Thomas Jefferson paid a journalist to publish claims his opponent and friend, John Adams, was deranged.

An inconvenient truth of the political heart is that it's prone to bring out in us the very things we say we hate about the other side. "We have met the enemy," said Pogo, "and he is us." That's true even if we say we want hope and change, and it's true even if we say we believe in loving our enemies.

In warning about hatred, am I buying in to naive rhetoric about ending partisan politics? Insisting that, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all?" Hardly.

A Far Side cartoon captures the danger of mere niceness well: "Although skilled with their pillow arsenal, the Wimpodites were favorite targets of Viking attacks." What then?

Fight hard and well. My wife and I discovered something odd about politics recently: Good political activism – as opposed to sitting around stewing with rage – gave us a measure of peace. If our side won, we rejoiced, knowing we'd helped a little; if it lost, we mourned without bitterness, while acquaintances who'd sat on the sidelines stewed.

I've also learned something recently from Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps: anger can be fuel. I plan to be active this season. And I aim to win.

But can I fight hard without damaging my heart, my relationships, or the country I claim to love?

Borrowing from two astute politicians, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Abraham Lincoln, I'm looking for ways to want good things for the other side, see the good in them, and genuinely see the force of their arguments.

Easy to say, hard to do, but I'm trying. I don't think that means I have to give up my favorite comedians; it does mean checking facts. (Factcheck.org, anyone?)

Even more, it means watching out for the times when I'm savoring bad reports about the other side, thinking, "now we've got you, you @#$&!"

Think of it as a kind of counterinsurgency. Or a response to another, more serious, inconvenient truth.

Read article »

Perspective on Politics & Economy

A reader checks in with tongue-in-cheek comments on the current financial crisis in our country. Sometimes it helps to look disaster in the face with a smile. - V

Dear American:

I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with
a transfer of funds of great magnitude.

I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion dollars US. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.

I am working with Mr. Phil Gram, lobbyist for UBS, who will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a Senator, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. This transactin is 100% safe.

This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred.

Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to wallstreetbailout@treasury.gov so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction. After I receive that information, I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.

Yours Faithfully Minister of Treasury Paulson

Read article »