Should We Start Another Korean War?

The suggestions that we start
a new Korean war are ludicrous.
A profoundly idiotic idea.
Regardless of how many
times North Korea tests
its missiles,this testing
does not constitute an
existential threat to the
United States or our allies.

Mutually assured destruction is not a
reasonable option or a sane alternative.
The greatest problem is simply the
asymmetry of America and Korea:
for fifty years the United States has
meant everything to Korea, but Korea
still means little to the United States.
In fact, some of the suggestions for a
response to the missile tests that have
significantly increased international
tensions are more dangerous than
the specter of a North Korean
missile capability itself.

Launching pre-emptive airstrikes or
even imposing economic sanctions
would be far more provocative and
dangerous than relying on deterrence
and engaging Pyongyang in strategic
diplomatic encounters. We need cool
heads to prevail in Washington and
the various East Asian capitals. North
Korea is an annoying problem, but it
is not an overwhelming threat.

This is no time for childish notions,
Hollywood hooliganism, or for
neonatal neanderthals to allow petulant
schoolyard cowboy machismo to
overrule objectivity, rationality,
and common sense. The Bush doctrine
of preemptive aggression contradicts
our most basic beliefs and values.
Beyond this, such sociopathological
behavior flies in the face of the
recommendations of our intelligence
community and the Pentagon.
The state department should butt out.
Those who are better trained
and more adequately briefed must
deal with this situation.

We have seeen the results of politicizing
our military perogatives. We do not need
unending wars and unbridled corporate
aggression. The misuse of our military
forces as enforcement for cost-plus,
no-bid contracts for corporate transnationals
has proven unproductive, unsafe, and a threat
to our economnic and military security interests.
We cannot afford to gamble our future on the
posturings of entertainers or the pretensions
of partisan pundits. Never again.

Tim

The so-called "Socialist Threat"

Socialism, capitalism, communism,
liberalism, conservatism, or other Isms...
cannot "hurt" this country.

Any who think socialism can hurt America,
grossly underestimate everyday people.

Neither socialism nor other isms can touch us.
Faith, hope, and courage will conquer fear.

Cheap talk about socialism, terrorism,
Islamic fascism, weapons of destruction,
and the efficacy of torture... represent
a surrender to fear.

We must find courage,
and refuse to surrender to fear
or compromise our values.

After 14 years of nonsense,
(the Bush/Obama agenda)...


"Tension, apprehension,and dissention have begun,
   and "a change is gonna come."

~tmf

(with apologies to Alfred Bester and Sam Cooke)

The United States and Our United Nations

The Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world would
have us believe that honoring our treaties and
living up to our commitments makes us subservient
to allies who trust us. Nothing could be further
from the truth. We are one of many nations and
peoples who band together to coordinate efforts
around the world. We explore outer space, sustain
the environment, nurture better schools, deliver
health-care, alleviate poverty, reduce homelessness,
fight injustice, secure peace, enhance freedom, and
protect personal liberty in all nations.

The right-wing, mean-extremes of selfishness and narcissism
are not viable platforms. These are symptoms of a lack of
actualization. When people mature, they are capable of reaching
beyond themselves to become part of their communities.

Civic-engagement is not something to be mocked, except by
deviants, juvenile delinquents, criminals, sociopaths, and
other sorts of antisocial types. (Or perhaps entertainers
appealing to the lowest common denominators: greed,
selfishness, agression, and immaturity.)

We have signed treaties with our allies. We are obligated to honor
those agreements because we operate according to the rule of law
guided by moral principles and intelligence. These are the lines
in the sand which define civilization. Those who reject such
cooperation and community development court disaster. We just
threw a couple of them out of the White House.
Now more mature and informed voices can be heard.

It is well worth listening to this redemptive symphony of hope.
Those who promote hopelessness are out of step with America.

tim
www.TheWordsmithCollection.org

State Bill Would Help Undocumented Immigrant Students

Wednesday, February 11, 2009
State Bill Would Help Undocumented Immigrant Students

A bill that will expand the eligibility for state need grants to undocumented students will be discussed in a public hearing before the House Committee on Higher Education today. Introduced in January, HB 1706 would expand the definition of students who are residents thereby expanding the state need grant program to help additional college students.

Last Friday, over 700 Latinos from around Washington State converged on the Capitol in Olympia to call for financial aid for undocumented students. One of the organizers of the capitol event, Ricardo Sanchez of Latino/a Education Achievement Project (LEAP), said in an interview with the Bellingham Herald:


“Most of the kids who are headed to college, they came here with their families when they were 2 or 3 years of age. Their parents came here to work. They’ve grown up in our system,” he said. “Now that they’ve proven themselves academically, what sense does it make to waste all of that?”
According to the AP, one of the bill’s cosponsors, State Representative Dave Quall echoed concerns saying that because many of these students are brought to the United States by their parents at a young age and are raised in the American education system, it wouldn't be right to deny aid to them.

The public hearing before the House Committee on Higher Education will take place 1:30 PM. The State Senate had a first reading yesterday on the their companion bill SB 5959.
http://www.causaoregon.blogspot.com/

Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Barack Obama

FDR's leadership helped save American Families from their suffering which was a direct
result of the devastating depression caused by Hoover's pandering to speculators...

There are some who pontificate about the "salvation of capitalism...." but this phrase has
much in common with "the war on terror..."

Capitalism is a label which poorly characterizes the socioeconomic system in America, now or then. And it has relatively little in common with the specific programs instituted under FDR
Terrorism is a tactic, and does not describe why we enforce the corporate occupation of Iraq,
nor does it provide any rational basis for our invasion of a non-agressive soverign nation.

I hope that Obama can relieve the suffering of American workers.I certainly do not expect him fundamentally address the forces which allow injustice and inequity to endure and survive. But if his incremental steps are as useful as FDR's fortunate stumblings, I'ill consider this a blessing.

Eric Holder... some questions remain

I am not necessarily enthralled with Mr. Holder. He is an improvement over Gonzalesl.
Mr. Holder says that the detainees are not entitled to Geneva convention protections.
(*This is wrong) He has other rather wishy-washy views when it comes to constitutional
issues and the rule of law. If he is to succeed as the next attorney general, he will need
to provide better answers to what are critical and foundational questions.

*"In 2006, the position espoused by Holder, Rumsfeld and the Bush administration
was rejected by the Supreme Court in Hamdan, when it ruled that even Al Qaeda
detainees are entitled to the minimum protections afforded to all detainees by
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention."

Further, as has been noted, Mr. Holder, shortly after the USA Patriot Act was signed into law
and at a point when the Bush administration was proposing to further erode barriers to governmental abuses, argued that dissenters should not be tolerated. He also called for
the firing of any "petty bureaucrat" who might suggest that proper procedures be followed
and that the separation of powers be respected.

While I am concerned with Holder for legitimate constitutional reasons, it unfair to play the race card... Those on the right who want to stall his confirmation may be wrong about his peripheral involvement with the Rich pardon or the efficacy of representing a variety of clients, but there are some serious concerns about his loyalty. The job requires that he be loyal to the constitution first and the president second. He does not seem to firmly grasp this concept. Although, as yet, nobody has recently asked him these essential questions. I hope they do.

Here is an interesting piece from The Nation, which puts these counterpoints in focus...

"Our needlessly abusive and unlawful practices in the ‘War on Terror' have diminished our standing in the world community and made us less, rather than more, safe," Holder said, correctly. "For the sake of our safety and security, and because it is the right thing to do, the next president must move immediately to reclaim America's standing in the world as a nation that cherishes and protects individual freedom and basic human rights."

That's a good message, to be sure.

But it must be juxtaposed against past statements made by Holder, such as this one: "The Attorney General is the one Cabinet member who's different from all the rest. The Attorney General serves first the people, but also serves the president. There has to be a closeness at the same time there needs to be distance."

What we need to know is this: How close will Holder, as attorney general, get to obeying his oath to defend the Constitution?

The place for that to happen is in a very serious, very aggressive confirmation process that should not simply presume that Holder will "get it" when questions about the Constitution arise.

I agree with this position. Given that Ashcroft and Gonzales both helped to subvert our constitutional protections... we must make certain that Holder will not follow in their footsteps.
The concerns that I have, are not with the vapid, shallow, and relatively meaningless rhetorical posturings of the right... but with the efficacy of confirming another Attorney General who seems
to feel that the Constitution may not quite be the supreme law of the land.

My position may be a bit conservative in this regard, but I feel no need to apologize for conserving constitutional integrity. This is the very crux of the issue. Either we restore the rule of law... or not.

So... let the questioning begin... and if Mr. Holder can sort out his apparent confusion and provide appropriate answers, I hope that he has the Integrity and finds the courage and political will to defend and enforce constitutional law in America. And after the past eight years, we have a right and a duty to demand as much.

Tim

Israel rejects truce call, pursues bombing Gaza

Israel rejects truce call, pursues bombing Gaza (AP)

AP - Israel resisted mounting international pressure Wednesday to suspend its devastating air offensive against militants in Hamas-ruled Gaza, sending more troops and tanks to the border as signs of an impending ground invasion multiplied. A long column of tanks and other army vehicles, two and three abreast, was strung out along an access road to Gaza. Dozens of tanks were parked in a rain-sodden field on the frontier.