ARE YOU BETTER OFF

THAN YOU WERE 8 YEARS AGO?...


I computed some interesting statistics about job growth vs. population growth in the USA which show why the Republicans, the party supposedly of growth (???) are in trouble.

--Rex Frankel (http://rexfrankel.com/)


Since 1975, the USA's population has grown by an average of 1% per year pretty consistently. The annual growth in population was around 2 million more per year in 1975, and is around 3 million more each year now, according to the census. (Total population has increased from 215 million to 303 million.)

During Democrat Jimmy Carter’s Presidency, the population increased by 9.7 million. Jobs increased by 10 million.

During Republican Ronald Reagan’s two terms, the population grew by 17.4 million. Total jobs increased by 6.8 million. Not so good.

Under Republican George Bush Srs.’ one term in office, population increased by 12.9 million. Total jobs increased by only 2.3 million. Whoops!

During Democrat Bill Clinton’s two terms, the population rose by 25.2 million. Total jobs increased by 18.7 million. Blame it on Monica?

Now for George Bush Jr.: In his 7 ½ years in office, population has increased by 18.8 million, while only 8.2 million jobs have been added.

Of course, we had a statistical anomaly due to 9-11, in which 2 million jobs were lost in the next year. But for years 2004-2006, the rate moved back to normal. But then in 2007 the growth rate was almost zero, and during the last 6 months we've lost jobs each month.

In Summary, when job growth is the same as our population growth rate, America's economy is somewhat healthy. Under Democrats our job growth rate has been pretty close to our population growth. Not so with the Republicans.

This simple statistical analysis doesn't deal with inflation, slow or non-growth of wages, outsourcing, etc., which have been part of the general trend of U.S. industry under most recent presidents. But despite what Rush Limbaugh and the right wing hotheads claim, we Americans are much better off when a Democrat is in the White House. If you've got a job, at least you have a chance to get ahead.

"It's the economy, stupid."

------------------------------------------------
For USA population totals, See http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/08abstract/pop.pdf


For USA employment totals, see http://www.bls.gov/data/home.htm, then click on the icon titled "most requested statistics" to the right of "Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey". Then click on the box next to the first item, which is titled "Employment Level - Civilian Labor Force", click on the "retrieve data" box, and the employment numbers will appear!

San Francisco to vote on George W Bush sewage works

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4207235.ece

6/24/08

Chris Ayres in Los Angeles

San Francisco is to hold a vote on whether to rename one of its largest sewage treatment facilities after George W. Bush, in what supporters describe as “a fitting monument to the President’s work”.

More than 8,500 signatures have already been gathered in support of the plan — 1,300 more than the minimum required to get the proposal on the November ballot. The scheme was devised by an official-sounding group called the Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco.

“On matters ranging from foreign relations to fiscal and environmental stewardship, no other president in American history has accomplished so much in such a short time,” says the group on its website. “We believe this is an appropriate honour for a truly unique president. If you think so too, join this grassroots movement to rename this important and iconic landmark in his honour.”

The official renaming ceremony — the sewage facility is currently named the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant — would take place in January, when the next President is sworn in. Part of it would include a “synchronised flush”, described as a way to send a gift to the renamed plant.

“It’s a very simple yes or no question and there’s no real fiscal impact - just the cost of relettering the sign in front of the plant,” Brian McConnell, one of the organisers, told the San Francisco Chronicle.

“This is the way the democratic process is supposed to work, even though it’s a silly idea in some people’s eyes.” Howard Epstein, chair of the San Francisco Republican Party, has called the measure an abuse of the system and the work of “typical San Francisco crazies”.

Meanwhile, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, which owns the plant, says it gets the joke but is nevertheless dismayed. It points to the awards it has won for keeping the streets and the ocean clean.

“If you are looking for a place to make a negative statement about the Bush administration’s impact on the environment, this would be the last place to do it,” said spokesman Tony Winnicker.

Undeterred, the Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco will continue gathering signatures from disaffected voters on the streets of San Francisco this weekend.

Campaigners will wear Uncle Sam top hats and suits and carry boom-boxes playing patriotic American music.

June 9, 2008, By Rex Frankel

To continue to believe that we can reduce the price of gasoline by simply finding more is a false choice. It ignores the fact that we could instead choose to divorce ourselves from non-renewable fossil fuels. Drilling in the Alaska wildlife reserve is like giving a drug addict a new source of crack after the previous crack house was shut down by the cops. It doesn't solve the problem at all.

America's oil addiction is bad for the environment and our economy. Switching over to renewable sources of fuels, to biofuels, biodiesel, and electrics is the only choice that ends the addiction.

Yes, extremely powerful and greedy forces are fighting to keep us tied to oil. They'd like us to think we're all trapped, that no alternatives will work. Not true! Alt-fuels can work, if our government would give them a chance. Solar power has worked for over 30 years, for example, for our homes. But when the government gives huge tax breaks to oil companies while they
report record profits, we know something is out of whack.

Oil industry apologists on TV and in the press would like us to blame consumers or
environmentalists or Democrats, as if they've been the ones running the country since 2000 while the price of gas has quadrupled.

It is folly to continue to blame the rest of us for America's being screwed by the oil companies and the overseas oil sharks. We are victims of supply and demand from the get-go. Americans have been forced to buy gas hogs because America's 3 car companies don't want to build fuel efficient cars and they fight every attempt by congress to increase the fuel-efficiency standards. Our carmakers love SUV's and gas hogs because the profit is so great on these tanks. Not
wanting to be left out, the more fuel-efficient foreign carmakers jumped on the bandwagon. I knew something was weird when Porsche, maker of short, slender sports cars came out with an SUV.

While ten years ago America had ten major oil companies, now we have five. When was the last time you saw the local gas stations have a "gas war"? The 1970's. In fact, today the only gas war supported by politicians from the Greedy Oilmen's Party is George and Dick's not so excellent Iraq Adventure. If anyone thought that invading the country with the second largest supply of oil would be good for consumers, history has shown otherwise. Since the 1970's, every
time the U.S. got involved in the unrest in the Mideast, drivers got screwed.

So while dubya and John McCain have blown billions on a war of choice 10,000 miles away, money that could have converted America's economy to alternative fuels instead went "up in smoke".

But we still can choose to change. We just have to admit we have a problem--If only there was a group called Gasoholics Anonymous...


"my name is ___, I'm addicted to oil..."

"welcome!"

------------------------------------------------
Remember When the Press Felt it Had an Obligation to Ask Tough Questions of those in Power?

Instead of Watching Out for the Public Interest, TV Newsmen Let Corporate Hacks and Warmongers Off Easy

Remembering Russert--or Rewriting History

What media eulogies remember--and forget

6/19/08
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3462

NBC's Meet the Press anchor and Washington bureau chief Tim Russert died of a heart attack on June 13. The outpouring from media and political elites only underscored Russert's status as one of most important figures in mainstream journalism. But amidst all of the accolades, critical assessments about Russert's record were scarce.

It would be difficult to imagine anyone more admired by fellow journalists. "He was the preeminent political journalist in America," declared pundit Al Hunt (6/15/08). "He was an American character right from Mark Twain," offered NBC colleague Chris Matthews (6/15/08). "He had an authority and insight in covering politics that the rest of us could only aspire to," remarked Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace (6/15/08).

Many of the tributes celebrated Russert's preparation for his Sunday morning interviews, the kind of performances that earned Russert his reputation as a particularly tough interviewer. "Tim Russert always did his homework," explained NBC's David Gregory. "He was always prepared for interviews." NBC producer Betsy Fischer agreed (6/15/08): "He would spend all week preparing for this show, reading everything."

Aside from the fact that this is somewhat unusual praise--shouldn't all journalists prepare for interviews?--Russert's supposedly aggressively posture was at times put to rather dubious ends. When Barack Obama appeared on Meet the Press (1/22/06), Russert grilled him about comments made by left-wing actor and entertainer Harry Belafonte: "I refer you to some comments that Harry Belafonte made yesterday. He said that Homeland Security had become the new Gestapo. What do you think of that?"

Russert followed up on the issue, despite the fact that the only apparent connection between the two men was the fact they were both black. When Russert moderated a debate between Obama and Hillary Clinton (2/26/08), he asked Obama about Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, despite the fact that the two had no discernable ties. Years earlier, Russert quizzed civil rights activist Al Sharpton about Farrakhan's views, telling him (8/25/00), "A leader in black America has said that Saddam Hussein is no more terrible than the president of the United States."

And Russert's tenacious interviewing style would alternate with a much more deferential one--depending on who was being interviewed. Surprisingly, some of Russert's journalistic colleagues praised him for being tough on the Bush administration over the Iraq War. CBS Evening News correspondent Anthony Mason said (6/13/08), "In 2003, as the United States prepared to go to war in Iraq, Russert pressed Vice President Dick Cheney about White House assumptions."

In reality, Meet the Press was the venue for some of the White House's most audacious lies about the Iraq War--most of which went unchallenged by Russert. On the morning that the New York Times published a front-page article falsely touting the now-famous "aluminum tubes" as components of an alleged Iraqi nuclear weapons program, Vice President Dick Cheney appeared on Meet the Press (9/8/02), where Russert pursued open-ended questions that seemed to invite spin from the vice president on Iraqi nuclear weapons.

Recalling such softball questioning, it's easy to believe the advice that Cheney press aide Cathie Martin says she gave when the Bush administration had to respond to charges that it manipulated pre-Iraq War intelligence: "I suggested we put the vice president on Meet the Press, which was a tactic we often used," she said (Salon, 1/26/07). "It's our best format."

In Bill Moyers' documentary "Buying the War" (PBS, 4/25/07), Russert expressed the wish that dissenting sources would have contacted him: "My concern was, is that there were concerns expressed by other government officials. And to this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them." Of course, any journalist could have found such sources--and certainly few critics of the war would have passed up an opportunity to air their views on such a prominent media platform.

As David Folkenflik pointed out in the Baltimore Sun (5/19/04), Russert seemed to think the media were merely following public opinion in the run up to the war:

"I don't think the public was, at that time, particularly receptive to hearing it," Russert says. "Back in October of 2002, when there was a debate in Congress about the war in Iraq--three-fourths of both houses of Congress voted with the president to go. Those in favor were so dominant. We don't make up the facts. We cover the facts as they were."

Folkenflik commented:

Russert's remarks would suggest a form of journalism that does not raise the insolent question from outside polite political discourse--so, if an administration's political foes aren't making an opposing case, it's unlikely to get made. In the words of one of my former editors, journalists can read the polls just like anybody else.

Indeed, the reticence to actually render judgment on those in power--particularly the Bush White House--was what many critics found so frustrating, especially coming from someone who enjoyed a reputation as a dogged interviewer. When author and comedian Al Franken appeared on Russert's CNBC show on April 1, 2006, the two got into a disagreement about the White House's oft-repeated claim that Congress had access to the same intelligence about Iraq's WMDs as the White House. Franken's point was that the president receives a daily briefing that Congress does not receive, so the claim is false. As Franken put it, "So what the president's saying isn't true, isn't that right, Tim?" Russert would only say, "I'll leave that for you to make a judgment."

Russert was not always so restrained about making judgments. He made a strange observation about Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry on October 31, 2004:

But is it inconsistent for John Kerry to be criticizing the missing weapons of mass destruction when, if he had been president of the United States, Saddam may be in power with all those potential biological, chemical weapons or munitions, however you want to describe them?

It's not clear what Russert meant, since Iraq did not have such weapons.

In some of the presidential debates he moderated, Russert often gravitated towards questions that were either irrelevant or framed from a right-wing political view. In one debate (9/26/07), he challenged the Democratic contenders to match Rudolph Giuliani's pledge that he would not permit Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. When Barack Obama suggested that talking about attacking Iran was "irresponsible," Russert responded: "So you would not offer a promise to the American people, like Giuliani, that Iran will not be able to develop and become a nuclear power?"

In the same debate, he asked Hillary Clinton if she would support an Israeli attack on Iran. When Clinton suggested this was a hypothetical, Russert interrupted with a curious non-sequitor: "It's not a hypothetical, Senator. It's real life." At a later debate (2/26/08), Russert asked Clinton about her proposal to withdraw troops from Iraq: "If this scenario plays out and the Americans get out in total and Al-Qaeda resurges and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right, in your mind, as American president, to re-invade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it?" When Clinton responded by saying, "You know, Tim, you ask a lot of hypotheticals," Russert interrupted: "But this is reality."

One of Russert's signature issues was the so-called Social Security "crisis," a line he pushed relentlessly over the last decade or so. NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell credited Russert (6/15/08) for bringing the issue to prominence by "defining what is the political issue. Nobody talked about entitlements. Nobody talked about Social Security and Medicare and balancing budgets on television on Sunday morning until Tim, with the facts and the experience that he had learned at the feet of Daniel Patrick Moynihan of the Finance Committee of the Senate."

As moderator of two of the Democratic debates (9/26/07, 10/30/07), Russert was particularly aggressive in questioning the candidates about Social Security's finances. In a November 5, 2007 MSNBC appearance discussing the debates, Russert said, "Everyone knows Social Security, as it's constructed, is not going to be in the same place it's going to be for the next generation--Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives."

Actually, as many economists have pointed out, the Social Security Administration projects that it will be able to pay full benefits to retirees for almost the next three decades. And just a few weeks before Russert made his statement, he interviewed former Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan (9/23/07). When Russert asked him "how big a crisis" the country faced in paying for Social Security and Medicare, Greenspan told him: "Social Security is not a big crisis. We're approximately 2 percentage points of payroll short over the very long run. It's a significant closing of the gap, but it's doable, and doable in any number of ways."

Despite the perception that Russert excelled at holding the powerful to account, in reality Russert was among the most powerful members of the political-journalistic establishment in Washington. His insider status was reinforced during the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, when Russert was forced to testify about his contacts with high-level Bush administration figures and discussions about Valerie Plame Wilson and Joe Wilson.

As Tim Rutten wrote in one of the few critical commentaries about Russert (L.A. Times, 6/14/08), "Like former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, Russert was one of the high-level Washington journalists who came out of the Libby trial looking worse than shabby." Rutten recounted that while Russert and NBC had publicly argued that these conversations were journalistic privilege, "it emerged under examination, however, Russert already had sung like a choirboy to the FBI concerning his conversation with Libby--and had so voluntarily from the first moment the Feds contacted him. All the litigation was for the sake of image and because the journalistic conventions required it."

Russert was, by almost every account, a warm and compassionate friend and mentor to many reporters, at NBC and elsewhere. The real question for citizens, though, is whether Russert performed as an aggressive and independent watchdog. Even some of his admirers explained that this was not the point. The Washington Post's David Broder explained (6/14/08), "His questioning was completely efficient but never officious. Both the viewers and the guests could tell he really liked the newsmakers he was interviewing."

"He respected politicians," right-wing pundit Mary Matalin explained (Meet the Press, 6/15/08). "He knew that they got blamed for everything, got credit for nothing. He knew how much they meant. He never treated them with the cynicism that attends some of these interviews. So they had a place to be loved. "

ABC's Sam Donaldson weighed in with one of the most revealing comments (This Week, 6/15/08): "He understood as well as anyone, maybe better than almost anyone, that the reason political reporters are there is not to speak truth to power. Today's truth is tomorrow's falsity. But to make those who say we have the truth-- the politicians--explain it. Defend it, explain to the American public where they're going and not pull your punches."

Asked about the failure to more aggressively challenge the White House on Iraq, Russert once explained (3/21/06):

Well, you know, there's really no alternative. There are a lot of people on the far right or the far left who want someone in my situation to yell and scream or lean over and choke somebody or slap them around and a lot of histrionics, but you really don't achieve anything because you make your guest immediately sympathetic, and I much prefer just to try to steady as you go, draw people out.

He added that the White House claims:

were judgments, and there was no way at that time to say, 'You're wrong. How could you possibly say that? You're lying.' That's just not the style of Meet The Press, nor I think the style of good journalism, but we now have a permanent record as to the judgments believed by the Bush administration going into the war and you can look at them three years later and decide whether they were correct or not.

In fact, there are journalists who examine the claims made by politicians at the time that they make them, and some of them were doing just that with the assertions Bush administration officials used to justify the invasion of Iraq (Extra!, 3-4/06). Had a journalist with the prominence of Tim Russert done so, it's possible that the debate could have had an entirely different outcome.

A reminder of What Stupid #$#@%&*+@! Our Media Can Be...

On the fifth anniversary of George W. Bush's speech beneath the "Mission Accomplished" banner where he declared the end of "major combat" in Iraq, it's appropriate to recall the crucial role pundits and reporters played in triumphantly hyping the war. This FAIR media advisory was originally sent out in March 2006.

'The Final Word Is Hooray!'
Remembering the Iraq War's Pollyanna pundits

3/15/06
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2842


Weeks after the invasion of Iraq began, Fox News Channel host Brit Hume delivered a scathing speech critiquing the media's supposedly pessimistic assessment of the Iraq War.

"The majority of the American media who were in a position to comment upon the progress of the war in the early going, and even after that, got it wrong," Hume complained in the April 2003 speech (Richmond Times Dispatch, 4/25/04). "They didn't get it just a little wrong. They got it completely wrong."

Hume was perhaps correct--but almost entirely in the opposite sense. Days or weeks into the war, commentators and reporters made premature declarations of victory, offered predictions about lasting political effects and called on the critics of the war to apologize. Three years later, the Iraq War grinds on at the cost of at least tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Around the same time as Hume's speech, syndicated columnist Cal Thomas declared (4/16/03): "All of the printed and voiced prophecies should be saved in an archive. When these false prophets again appear, they can be reminded of the error of their previous ways and at least be offered an opportunity to recant and repent. Otherwise, they will return to us in another situation where their expertise will be acknowledged, or taken for granted, but their credibility will be lacking."

Gathered here are some of the most notable media comments from the early days of the Iraq War.


Declaring Victory

"Iraq Is All but Won; Now What?"
(Los Angeles Times headline, 4/10/03)


"Now that the combat phase of the war in Iraq is officially over, what begins is a debate throughout the entire U.S. government over America's unrivaled power and how best to use it."
(CBS reporter Joie Chen, 5/4/03)


"Congress returns to Washington this week to a world very different from the one members left two weeks ago. The war in Iraq is essentially over and domestic issues are regaining attention."
(NPR's Bob Edwards, 4/28/03)


"Tommy Franks and the coalition forces have demonstrated the old axiom that boldness on the battlefield produces swift and relatively bloodless victory. The three-week swing through Iraq has utterly shattered skeptics' complaints."
(Fox News Channel's Tony Snow, 4/13/03)


"The only people who think this wasn't a victory are Upper Westside liberals, and a few people here in Washington."
(Charles Krauthammer, Inside Washington, WUSA-TV, 4/19/03)


"We had controversial wars that divided the country. This war united the country and brought the military back."
(Newsweek's Howard Fineman--MSNBC, 5/7/03)


"We're all neo-cons now."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 4/9/03)


"The war was the hard part. The hard part was putting together a coalition, getting 300,000 troops over there and all their equipment and winning. And it gets easier. I mean, setting up a democracy is hard, but it is not as hard as winning a war."
(Fox News Channel's Fred Barnes, 4/10/03)


"Oh, it was breathtaking. I mean I was almost starting to think that we had become inured to everything that we'd seen of this war over the past three weeks; all this sort of saturation. And finally, when we saw that it was such a just true, genuine expression. It was reminiscent, I think, of the fall of the Berlin Wall. And just sort of that pure emotional expression, not choreographed, not stage-managed, the way so many things these days seem to be. Really breathtaking."
(Washington Post reporter Ceci Connolly, appearing on Fox News Channel on 4/9/03, discussing the pulling down of a Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad, an event later revealed to have been a U.S. military PSYOPS operation--Los Angeles Times, 7/3/04)


Mission Accomplished?

"The war winds down, politics heats up.... Picture perfect. Part Spider-Man, part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan. The president seizes the moment on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific."
(PBS's Gwen Ifill, 5/2/03, on George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech)


"We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple. We're not like the Brits."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 5/1/03)


"He looked like an alternatively commander in chief, rock star, movie star, and one of the guys."
(CNN's Lou Dobbs, on Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' speech, 5/1/03)


Neutralizing the Opposition

"Why don't the damn Democrats give the president his day? He won today. He did well today."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 4/9/03)


"What's he going to talk about a year from now, the fact that the war went too well and it's over? I mean, don't these things sort of lose their--Isn't there a fresh date on some of these debate points?"
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, speaking about Howard Dean--4/9/03)


"If image is everything, how can the Democratic presidential hopefuls compete with a president fresh from a war victory?"
(CNN's Judy Woodruff, 5/5/03)


"It is amazing how thorough the victory in Iraq really was in the broadest context..... And the silence, I think, is that it's clear that nobody can do anything about it. There isn't anybody who can stop him. The Democrats can't oppose--cannot oppose him politically."
(Washington Post reporter Jeff Birnbaum-- Fox News Channel, 5/2/03)


Nagging the "Naysayers"

"Now that the war in Iraq is all but over, should the people in Hollywood who opposed the president admit they were wrong?"
(Fox News Channel's Alan Colmes, 4/25/03)


"I doubt that the journalists at the New York Times and NPR or at ABC or at CNN are going to ever admit just how wrong their negative pronouncements were over the past four weeks."
(MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, 4/9/03)


"I'm waiting to hear the words 'I was wrong' from some of the world's most elite journalists, politicians and Hollywood types.... I just wonder, who's going to be the first elitist to show the character to say: 'Hey, America, guess what? I was wrong'? Maybe the White House will get an apology, first, from the New York Times' Maureen Dowd. Now, Ms. Dowd mocked the morality of this war....

"Do you all remember Scott Ritter, you know, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector who played chief stooge for Saddam Hussein? Well, Mr. Ritter actually told a French radio network that -- quote, 'The United States is going to leave Baghdad with its tail between its legs, defeated.' Sorry, Scott. I think you've been chasing the wrong tail, again.

"Maybe disgraced commentators and politicians alike, like Daschle, Jimmy Carter, Dennis Kucinich, and all those others, will step forward tonight and show the content of their character by simply admitting what we know already: that their wartime predictions were arrogant, they were misguided and they were dead wrong. Maybe, just maybe, these self-anointed critics will learn from their mistakes. But I doubt it. After all, we don't call them 'elitists' for nothing."
(MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, 4/10/03)


"Over the next couple of weeks when we find the chemical weapons this guy was amassing, the fact that this war was attacked by the left and so the right was so vindicated, I think, really means that the left is going to have to hang its head for three or four more years."
(Fox News Channel's Dick Morris, 4/9/03)


"This has been a tough war for commentators on the American left. To hope for defeat meant cheering for Saddam Hussein. To hope for victory meant cheering for President Bush. The toppling of Mr. Hussein, or at least a statue of him, has made their arguments even harder to defend. Liberal writers for ideologically driven magazines like The Nation and for less overtly political ones like The New Yorker did not predict a defeat, but the terrible consequences many warned of have not happened. Now liberal commentators must address the victory at hand and confront an ascendant conservative juggernaut that asserts United States might can set the world right."
(New York Times reporter David Carr, 4/16/03)


"Well, the hot story of the week is victory.... The Tommy Franks-Don Rumsfeld battle plan, war plan, worked brilliantly, a three-week war with mercifully few American deaths or Iraqi civilian deaths.... There is a lot of work yet to do, but all the naysayers have been humiliated so far.... The final word on this is, hooray."
(Fox News Channel's Morton Kondracke, 4/12/03)

"Some journalists, in my judgment, just can't stand success, especially a few liberal columnists and newspapers and a few Arab reporters."
(CNN's Lou Dobbs, 4/14/03)

"Sean Penn is at it again. The Hollywood star takes out a full-page ad out in the New York Times bashing George Bush. Apparently he still hasn't figured out we won the war."
(MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, 5/30/03)


Cakewalk?

"This will be no war -- there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention.... The president will give an order. [The attack] will be rapid, accurate and dazzling.... It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring it on."
(Christopher Hitchens, in a 1/28/03 debate-- cited in the Observer, 3/30/03)


"I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego that military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing to take that wager?"
(Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 1/29/03)


"It won't take weeks. You know that, professor. Our military machine will crush Iraq in a matter of days and there's no question that it will."
(Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03)


"There's no way. There's absolutely no way. They may bomb for a matter of weeks, try to soften them up as they did in Afghanistan. But once the United States and Britain unleash, it's maybe hours. They're going to fold like that."
(Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03)


"He [Saddam Hussein] actually thought that he could stop us and win the debate worldwide. But he didn't--he didn't bargain on a two- or three week war. I actually thought it would be less than two weeks."
(NBC reporter Fred Francis, Chris Matthews Show, 4/13/03)


Weapons of Mass Destruction

NPR's Mara Liasson: Where there was a debate about whether or not Iraq had these weapons of mass destruction and whether we can find it...

Brit Hume: No, there wasn't. Nobody seriously argued that he didn't have them beforehand. Nobody.
(Fox News Channel, April 6, 2003)


"Speaking to the U.N. Security Council last week, Secretary of State Colin Powell made so strong a case that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is in material breach of U.N. resolutions that only the duped, the dumb and the desperate could ignore it."
(Cal Thomas, syndicated column, 2/12/03)


"Saddam could decide to take Baghdad with him. One Arab intelligence officer interviewed by Newsweek spoke of 'the green mushroom' over Baghdad--the modern-day caliph bidding a grotesque bio-chem farewell to the land of the living alongside thousands of his subjects as well as his enemies. Saddam wants to be remembered. He has the means and the demonic imagination. It is up to U.S. armed forces to stop him before he can achieve notoriety for all time."
(Newsweek, 3/17/03)


"Chris, more than anything else, real vindication for the administration. One, credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Two, you know what? There were a lot of terrorists here, really bad guys. I saw them."
(MSNBC reporter Bob Arnot, 4/9/03)


"Even in the flush of triumph, doubts will be raised. Where are the supplies of germs and poison gas and plans for nukes to justify pre-emption? (Freed scientists will lead us to caches no inspectors could find.) What about remaining danger from Baathist torturers and war criminals forming pockets of resistance and plotting vengeance? (Their death wish is our command.)"
(New York Times' William Safire, 4/10/03)

Simply too cute for words...

http://www.kittenwar.com

Creative Wallpaper...

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/34068

I Support The Occupation Of Iraq, But I Don't Support Our Troops

By James W. Henley
February 23, 2005 | Issue 41•08


The U.S. went to war in Iraq to remove an evil and dangerous political
adversary from power. Now that we have done that, the American troops
must remain in Iraq until the country is a fully functioning democracy,
able to spark change throughout the entire Middle East. While I find
this obvious, there are still a lot of people in our country who fail
to grasp it. I support Bush-administration foreign-policy goals, but I
stand firmly against the individual men and women on the ground in the
Persian Gulf.

Yes, occupying Iraq does require troops, but they are there for one
reason and one reason only: to carry out the orders of the U.S. Defense
Department. As far as their overall importance goes, they are no more
worthy of our consideration than a box of nails. Ribbons and banners in
ostensible "support" of the troops miss the whole point of the
invasion, which is to gain a strategic hold over that volatile and
lucrative geopolitical region.

Need I remind the reader that it is our flag, not the troops, that we
salute? It is our nation-state, not a bunch of 20-year-olds in
parachute pants, that deserves our allegiance. As a patriot and true
American, my heart sings at the thought of the Pentagon, and the
zealous, calculating measures undertaken by the proud military
bureaucracy of this great superpower. I feel a surge of pride when I
think about our high-tech GBU laser-guided bombs, capable of carrying a
2,000-pound warhead. I tied a ribbon around my tree for the safe return
of our nation's F-16s, because our military aircraft are instrumental
to finishing our work in Iraq. And on the back of my car, I have a
sticker stating my support for the CIA's ongoing efforts in Iraq.

I support the occupation, and the occupation alone, because when we
start to support the troops, we pave the way for irrelevant concerns
about their families back at home. Before you know it, questions about
who is and isn't going to be home in time for Christmas will be
interfering with the crucial decision-making process of our
commander-in-chief.

I'd like to ask those currently trumpeting their support for the troops
a question: Have you ever actually met any of these soldiers in person?
Well, I have, and believe me, they are no more impressive than any
other low-level functionary of a large institution.

In all honesty, my soul swells with pride at the thought of the
military-strategy papers and cost-analysis reports in which the troops
are represented as numerical figures. But, as for the men and
women—well, in almost every respect, they are average. Although they
are no less intelligent than any other American, it is certainly fair
to say they lack the ability to devise the complex strategies and
tactics to manage their own divisions, much less grasp the nuanced
reasons for their deployment.

It is ridiculous that my "heart" is somehow morally or ethically
obliged to "go out" to the troops. In fact, had the troops not been put
to productive labor by the sheer might and institutional authority of
the U.S. military, a good number of them would be sitting around bars,
drinking and gambling. In short, we shouldn't view the troops as
objects of sympathy, because their very contribution to our society is
their ability to carry out simple commands on a battlefield.

Allow me to pursue this from a more personal angle. I have a son in the
military. If I may say so, we've never gotten along particularly well.
Frankly, he's been a bit of a disappointment to his mother and me.
Nevertheless, he is our flesh and blood and always will be, and we wish
him no harm. So I speak from a position of personal experience when I
say that, while I do not wish death for any of the troops, death tolls
should not be our greatest concern. All that matters is the pursuit of
the foreign-policy goals of this great land, the land I love. America.

Ya Gotta Have Faith...

Tired of the same old time religion?

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/

Principia Discordia OR How I Found Goddess And What I Did To Her When I Found Her
Wherein is Explained
Absolutely Everything Worth Knowing
About Absolutely Anything

A Discordian is Required during his early Illumination to Go Off Alone & Partake Joyously of a Hot Dog on a Friday; this Devotive Ceremony to Remonstrate against the popular Paganisms of the Day: of Catholic Christendom (no meat on Friday), of Judaism (no meat of Pork), of Hindic Peoples (no meat of Beef), of Buddhists (no meat of animal), and of Discordians (no Hot Dog Buns).

http://poee.co.uk/doc_files/baloney.pdf

Culver City Land Sale to Developer Halted by Court

Culver City News, April 19, 2007

Chance to Regroup Over Land Sale is Applauded
By Gary Walker

http://www.socal.com/articles/3383-99.html

to read more about the judge's ruling, http://www.socal.com/articles/3362-99.html

(April 19) A judicial finding earlier this month that the City Council had ignored its responsibility to conduct proper environmental review before selling the Warner Parking Lot last year to developer Frederick Smith brought a variety of reactions from residents and business owners of the Hayden Tract, along with state environmental organizations this week.

"I was very happy when I heard about [the court’s decision]," said Sadie Cerda, a long-time homeowner who lives on Schaefer Street.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David Yaffe ruled on April 6 that the council had violated the California Environmental Quality Act when it sold the Warner lot to Smith for approximately $5.5 million on March 27 last year without conducting proper environmental studies. Smith, a high profile, award-winning developer with several business holdings in the Hayden Tract, has had designs on the lot for several years. He hopes to build a massive multi-use, state-of-the art theater complex on the site of the parking lot.

Then-Mayor Albert Vera, then-Vice Mayor Gary Silbiger and council members Alan Corlin and Carol Gross voted for the sale. Council member Steve Rose was adamantly opposed.

Yaffe found that the proposed development was indeed a project, despite the city’s claims to the contrary. "There is a nexus between the [proposed] development and this property," the judge announced to attorneys representing Smith, Culver City and 8461Warner Drive, the petitioner in the lawsuit. He then asked James Repking, the attorney for 8461 Warner, to submit a writ in judgment requesting what his client would like the eventual outcome to be. Yaffe invited the other parties’ lawyers to submit their respective objections to the petitioner’s requests.

The court will render a ruling in the next few weeks on what solutions it will impose on the city for its attempt to evade environmental scrutiny. Yaffe will consider the options of ordering Culver City to conduct proper CEQA review or nullifying the sale in its entirety. Repking, an associate at Cox, Castle & Nicholson in Century City, said after the hearing that he would ask the court to invalidate the sale.

Because the council circumvented CEQA regulations, "Any approvals that they have made on the project have to be corrected...or the sale should be nullified," said Rex Frankel, director of the Ballona Ecosystem Education Project, an environmental activist group.

Al Luber, the proprietor of Santa Monica Gymnasium, learned of the court’s decision from a relative. "To me, it looked like [the city council] were trying to avoid CEQA," he said. "My feeling was that they seemed a little bit arrogant [during the council meeting last year when the lot was sold]. It seemed like they had their minds made up."

Jeffery Palmer, who owns several properties in the business district, did not follow the sale of the lot and the ensuing litigation as much as other Hayden Tract merchants did. "Other property owners informed me about [the sale of the lot to Smith]," he said this week during a telephone interview. Palmer, whose buildings have private parking for clients, nevertheless realizes what losing the Warner lot would mean to many of the business people in the Hayden Tract. "A number of them are dependent on the lot for parking, and without it, parking could be a problem," he said.

Luber said that he and other Hayden Tract merchants recently received notice that Smith will soon raise the parking fees at the Warner lot. The parking area at one time was frequently utilized to almost maximum capacity, but "now its seems like it’s half-empty most of the time," he noted.

Yaffe, a CEQA jurist, underscored the local government’s failure to conduct any hearings for interested parties on the project prior to Smith’s purchase of the lot in his remarks during and after the hearing. "[Culver City] concedes that the development for which its purchaser is buying the property, will potentially have a significant effect upon the environment, but its public officials do not wish to permit the public participation required by CEQA to the developer," the judge wrote in his judicial order. "Such desire on the part of the public officials of the city of Culver City is not consistent with the basic purpose of CEQA."

"CEQA is all about revealing the impact of a development to the politicians and to the public," said Frankel. "It should always be an open process."

Former Community Development Director Susan Evans was the first city official to claim that no development existed when the council deliberated selling the parking lot at a March council meeting last year. "The action before the city council tonight does not constitute consideration of project. A project is not before the council tonight. It is a straight land sale...It doesn’t have anything to do with redeveloping this property," she repeatedly told the council.

Shortly thereafter, Murray Kane, a veteran redevelopment and real estate lawyer who advises Culver City on land use matters, said that the city’s legislative body could legally allow Smith to purchase the property without CEQA review. "The state legislature has given authority for the establishment of guidelines creating categorical exemptions to compliance with environmental review," the attorney assured the council. Because selling the parking lot amounted to a "sale of surplus city land," the council had "broad discretion to dispose of city property for the benefit of the community," Kane claimed.

Donald Johnson, an attorney representing Culver City, argued at the CEQA hearing before Yaffe that the city sold Smith the lot as a "straight land sale," without any knowledge or expectation that the developer would seek to construct a development at the site. "It’s a plain old generic purchase and sale agreement," the lawyer argued. Johnson is a senior counsel at Kane, Ballmer and Berkman, where Kane is a partner.

"Any time that a government agency makes a decision in secret that benefits a private developer and not the public, that is a serious violation of CEQA," charged Frankel, whose organization contested parts of the Playa Vista development and takes credit for scaling back the condominium project.

CEQA is the landmark state law that functions as a system of checks and balances for land use development and management decisions in California. Enacted in 1970, it is more stringent than environmental laws in most other states, often extending beyond federal statutes established under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Some of the most basic tenets of the environmental statute are to:

(1) Inform governmental decision-makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities.

(2) Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.

(3) Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible.

(4) Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.

"CEQA is the equivalent of an environmental California Bill of Rights," says Rico Mastrodonato, the director of the Northern California branch of the state League of Conservation Voters. "It ensures that public participation is into taken account when a project can have an impact on the health of a neighborhood.

"Without CEQA, the only thing that’s taken into account are the economic decisions of a project," Mastrodonato continued. "That’s why CEQA is absolutely essential in helping an agency make responsible land use decisions. It’s really not rocket science."

Increased traffic congestion has surfaced as one of the most important concerns for residents of Rancho Higuera and other east Culver City neighborhoods who fear that will be one of the legacies of the proposed entertainment complex. Automobile accidents over a four-year period, including a fatality that claimed the life of a young teacher at the Turning Point School, have left homeowners like Cerda anxious about development that will exacerbate an already hazardous situation in the neighborhood. "There’s already more traffic than before on our residential streets, and people are always speeding down National Boulevard," she said. "It’s mind-boggling to think that [the city] would allow such a large project here, with other developments on the way and the [Mid-Cities Exposition light rail] coming to National.

"We were never notified about the project or the parking lot sale, so our feelings were never considered," Cerda added.

Mastrodonato’s organization is sensitive to homeowners like Cerda’s concerns. "One of the major tenets of CEQA is ensuring that the public have an opportunity to have input on a development that has the potential to affect their neighborhood," the director reiterated.

While he realizes that environmental review must take place when it is mandated, Palmer thinks that a project like the Conjunctive Points Theater Complex – the name that Smith has chosen for his proposed development – could be a plus for the commercial district. "It’s possible that it could be very beneficial to the Hayden Tract," he believes. "It could bring more tax revenues and greater economic vitality to the area."

And potentially more cars, density and air pollution, say residents who live near the planned development. Over the last several months, planning and traffic engineers from other Westside cities were queried about significant aspects of the sale and how their cities approach projects that will impact on nearby businesses and residences. "In Beverly Hills, I don’t think that our city council would accept a project of that size without an EIR," Bijan Vaziri, chief traffic engineer in Beverly Hills, told the News last October.

"We try to look at the scope, the nature and the size of a project when planning a traffic study," Beth Rolandson, Santa Monica’s senior transportation engineer said in reference to how her city anticipates added automobile congestion brought about by a new development.

Both Mastrodonato and Frankel emphasized that governmental agencies are mandated to notify and encourage affected residents, businesses and interested groups to participate in public hearings prior to the approval of a project, and many Southland cities take public participation when planning new development projects very seriously. "In Santa Monica, there have been instances where the council has directed our staff to go back and address mitigation issues if the community feels that their concerns have not been adequately addressed before they approve a project," Rolandson noted.

While he is a strong believer in the groundbreaking environmental state law, Mastrodonato feels that there may be some areas where CEQA can be slightly altered. "I think that it’s reasonable to say that CEQA guidelines can be reviewed and possibly streamlined," he said, citing the complaints of developers and some agencies that environmental review can sometimes be very lengthy and can cause delays in building new developments. "But while there are reasonable arguments that can be made, there is no question that CEQA is an absolutely necessary tool for smart [city] planning."

Frankel concurs. "Compliance with CEQA is a sacred part of the development process," he said. "Any attempt to thwart public participation is a very serious violation of CEQA, and can have very serious consequences."

Urban Greenway Plans

Links to The Olmsted Plan

http://web.pdx.edu/~poracskj/OlmstedConf_JP.html

http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/friendsofolmstedparks/home.htm

http://sjcrcl.stanford.edu/drafts/Garcia.pdf
on the Los Angeles Olmsted plan (large file--22 megabytes)

http://cityprojectca.org/images/ourwork/mappinggreenaccess/full/olmsted.gif

http://cityprojectca.org/ourwork/olmsted.html

other states' residents say Californians suck

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-25-californians_N.htm?csp=24

Ex-Californians draw Westerners' ire

LAS VEGAS — It's dead inside Favorites bar this afternoon, where the propped-open door spills a bit of light onto the ancient Elvis pin ball machine and the grumpy man puffing on a cigarette in front of the video poker machine.

There's no food here, unless you count the vending machine against the green wall. Owner Ray Medrano had to make a choice: Close the kitchen or ban smoking in the joint altogether. His customers love their smokes more than their food, so the kitchen lost.

For Medrano, there's only one despicable group of people to blame for Nevada passing a smoking ban that eliminates smoking in restaurants and bars that also serve food: Californians.

"California has a negative influence on our society," he said, glancing around as cigarette smoke fills the stuffy place. "They should keep their world in their world."

It's a popular refrain from many in the West. When Californians move in, it's always their fault when things change. They infect the rest of the region with their politics and questionable driving, and make housing prices soar.

Sure, it's been 30 years since Oregonians first slapped "Don't Californicate Oregon" bumper stickers on their cars, but, like the song by the Red Hot Chili Peppers, "Californication" is still alive and well.

"I think it's just such a common desire to say things were really calm and great here and then these people came in," said Patty Limerick, history professor and faculty director of the University of Colorado's Center of the American West.

Since 1991, the number of Californians moving out topped the number of people moving in to the state. And where do they go? The top five states Californians moved to between 2000 and 2005 were Arizona, Nevada, Texas, Washington and Oregon, according to William Frey, population expert for the Brookings Institution.

For many Californians, they want what eludes them in their state — open space, clean air and not so much traffic. So they sell their houses for a chunk of change, move somewhere else in the West, buy a bigger house and start driving up the housing prices, much to the dismay of locals.

Sherrie Watson has lived in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, since she was 16 and is quite fed up with Californians.

"They complain how cold it is. And they just moved here because it is cheaper and to 'get away,' but then they keep saying things like, 'We did it in California this way, so why don't you change?' "

"They came here because they liked it the way is was when they visited, but then they want to change it. I don't get it," she said.

Picking on Californians has almost become a sport, with people trying to come up with the catchiest slogans or blogging about how annoying Golden Staters are.

Montanan Tom Heatherington runs a website called www.montana-sucks.com that sells T-shirts and bumper stickers that say: "Montana sucks. Now go home and tell all your friends."

The products aren't specifically aimed at Californians, but, let's just say the point is taken.

"Most people just have this state of mind about Californians being, how shall I say it — different — than everybody else," Heatherington said politely.

Shirley Vanderstelt, 34, is an ex-Californian who moved to Bozemon, Mont., four years ago. Mostly, she has felt welcome, but "there is definitely an underlying feeling of dislike for most Californians.

"I generally tell people where I grew up, then immediately follow that with 'I'm not one of THOSE Californians' because it usually starts with rolling of the eyes, a sigh and shaking of the head."

When John Wilker and his wife moved from Riverside, Calif., to Highlands Ranch, Colo., in 2005, they were told to change their license plates quickly or they would be run off the road.

A joke?

Maybe, but that resentment and clash of cultures is very real.

For many Westerners, California is seen as a state of excess and an example of how things shouldn't be done. (These also are the people who elected a movie star as their governor.)

Combine that with the frontier West, where residents aren't so interested in a lot of government control over how they behave, and therein lies the problem.

Yes, Californians drive up housing costs, and some can even be blamed for falling prices because of the many investors who snapped up cheap houses, then wanted to sell, creating too much inventory in cities like Las Vegas and Phoenix. Many believe those cities are becoming suburbs of Los Angeles.

"Home prices go up and we all blame Californians," said Jay Butler, director of Realty Studies at Arizona State University Polytechnic. "They are sort of like the West Coast version of the New Yorkers. They have the attitude."

But what about politics? Are Californians starting to turn the West more blue?

"I think the Democratic Party is counting on it," Frey said. "If they shifted just a little bit in the last election, (they) could have elected a Democratic president."

Colorado has gone from red to blue in the last four years, something ex-Californians may have had a hand in, said independent pollster Floyd Ciruli. But really the change just indicates what is happening in the rest of the country, he said.

Now, about that smoking ban. Nevada, where gambling and smoking are almost one in the same, previously had one of the nation's least restrictive smoking laws. Now there's no smoking in restaurants, bars that serve food or around slot machines in grocery stores or gas stations.

Connie Feulner is a bartender at Jake's Bar in Las Vegas. When customers get to talking about the smoking ban that passed last November, she keeps mum. Don't tell the customers, but she used to live in California.

"Damn Californians," she said, repeating a familiar complaint. "All their fault, all the time."

Rail-roaded into paving open spaces?

Friday, February 02, 2007

Developers Laugh While Rail and Park Advocates Fight

L.A.Times Columnist Pits Light Rail Advocates Against Open Space Protectors;

We Can Have Both.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2007/01/steves_cheviot_.html#comments

(NOTE: Steve Lopez's column on !/28/2007 attacked folks who want to preserve open space because they want the second phase of the Exposition light rail project to run along the noisy Venice and Sepulveda Blvds., instead of through the only remaining open space in a quiet neighborhood. Rather than blame big oil companies for wrecking L.A.'s Pacific Electric rail system in the 1950's, Lopez pitted the average folks of L.A. against each other.)

Here's our view on this:

The issue here is about a choice between putting the Expo rail on two wide and noisy streets (Venice and Sepulveda that could actually encourage existing drivers on those streets to take the rail and not drive), ---or putting the rail on a vacant, green strip in a quiet neighborhood that could just as well become a park and community gardens. But no, instead of supporting the first route I mentioned, you want to waste a lot of energy bashing on residents of Cheviot Hills. In the end, we will get a rail from downtown to the sea. For the record, I don't live anywhere near Cheviot Hills; I live in Westchester next to the freeway, so I get loud traffic noise 24 hours a day from the freeway on the north and from booming jets at LAX on the south. I have sympathy for residents along the Gold line who hear the train horns around the clock. Maybe those on this blog who have been aroused to want to lynch the leaders of residents groups in Cheviot Hills don't live next to the noisy project they are supporting. This is the essence of the hypocricy behind the use of the phrase NIMBY.

What's most important, in my mind, beyond fixing the traffic mess and cleaning up the Bay, is that we need to preserve unpaved open spaces in this concrete monstropolis any way that we can. When there is an alternative to a huge public works project that will save open space and still solve a public need, than we are fools if we don't try to do both. We can have a superb public rail system here again; we can also create and preserve open spaces in this sea of concrete. But when we resort to NIMBY name-calling, we are using the language of the developers and the despoilers of this great city to divide, a propaganda trick that has led to the mess we are in today.

I take issue with Lopez's claim that "There's no preexisting railroad right of way along Venice Blvd." Of course there is! That's why Venice is so wide and why the sidewalks and parkways are so wide: because there used to be a rail line running down the middle. Of course, there's enough room to put a light rail there, and we do own the land!

If we really want to lessen the traffic mess at Century City, the rail line needs to be IN Century City. For example, Santa Monica Blvd. used to have a rail line on it and it forms the north border of Century City. On the other hand, the expo line is quite a ways away from this dense area.

I'm really tired of journalists attacking neighborhoods as being selfish NIMBY's. I'll bet you don't live next to the Expo line. When journalists try to emphasize conflict in stories on land use issues, why is it usually framed as pitting middle class neighborhoods against poor people? L.A.'s transit crisis was not created by the folks in Cheviot Hills. Let's put blame where it belongs:on selfish, developer-driven City Councils and on the car, oil and tire corporations that wiped out L.A. 's Pacific Electric Railway system. Here, the super-rich got us into a big mess, and yet, you're trying to pit the rest of us against each other. Many of the problems in this country are caused by the selfish top 2% corporate elite that get away with (figuratively) murder, while their corporate media tries to stir up everyone else to fight each other over straw-man issues. Can't find an affordable home? Blame existing residents, or blame the developers that only build luxury homes. Tired of high gas prices? Blame selfish air-breathing environmentalists for demanding clean air, or blame the oil companies and their political buddies that have squelched alternate fuels research. Steve Lopez's article pointed his finger at all but the real culprit for L.A.'s traffic messes.

Lastly, The L.A times has supported every major development in this City's history. The Times helped to create this problem. What's the Times going to do to fix it? Open your own wallet and help out! Don't blame the average folks for a mess created by the corporate elite.