greenandprofitable.com

Ten years ago, the United States began its illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq: an operation based on numerous lies, no real evidence, and a lot of testosterone.

Iraq, as we know now and strongly suspected then, had no connection with Al Quaida, nor did it have “Weapons of Mass Destruction.” It had a stable, if nasty, government. And it had the bad judgment to have a little war with the U.S. over Kuwait during the first Bush administration.

So George W. Bush and his minders decided to get even. And the United States became the “rouge state” that the Bush administration accused Iraq of being.

What did we accomplish with this shameful chapter in our history? Hundreds of thousands dead and injured and homeless, vicious acts by US troops and Blackwater mercenaries at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, and widespread enmity throughout the Arab world. Oh yes, and the worst kinds of extremist terrorists established a beachhead in places where they had never had strength before, including Iraq itself. And Iraq’s economy shattered. And the US economy—let’s remember that GW Bush inherited a SURPLUS from Bill Clinton—badly damaged.

A weak President Obama has brought us back into the company of nations, and partially rebuilt the US economy but has failed to reverse so many of the wretched Bush policies and has allowed the right-wing extremist fringe to frame and control the discourse.

To commemorate these ten years, MoveOn.org asked people to share one memory. Rather than focus on the negative, I wrote:

I remember the amazing demonstration in NYC just before the invasion that filled at least four wide avenues on the east side of Midtown Manhattan. I am guessing there were about two million of us, and the police wouldn’t even let people down to the low-number avenue (I think it was 1st Ave, near the UN) where the “official” rally was—so we spilled over and filled up 2nd, 3rd, and Lexington. The media only counted people on the official avenue, but those of us who were there know it was enormous–possibly the largest US peace demonstration in history.

Of course, it should not be a surprise that the mainstream media severely undercounted us. After all, Judith Miller of the New York Times and many other supposedly skilled journalists were cheerleading the run up to the war, neglecting their journalistic due diligence, and even firing those among them who dared to speak out (including Bill Moyers and Phil Donahue).

No more illegal, immoral wars!

I haven’t had as many chances as I’d hoped to be proud of President Barack Obama in his 3+ years in office. But yesterday was a day I could be very proud of him; as you certainly know by now, he is the first US president to acknowledge that same-sex couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples, including the right to marry. Obama has been ambivalent on the issue (and quite a few others) for many years, so a clear, unequivocal, uncompromising position is rare. Perhaps is voice is stronger because of his own history; the union of his parents would have been illegal in many parts of the country for years after his birth.

This should not be rocket science. Same-sex marriage has been legal in several other parts of the world (and even a few US states, including my own home of Massachusetts) for several years, and the sky has not fallen.

Still, when I attended my first few same-sex weddings back in the late 1970s, I didn’t think I’d live to see such unions acknowledged by any government. In less than 30 years, it’s become an inevitability. I remember President Bush reluctantly endorsing civil unions, even as he condemned gay marriage, and thinking that this was enormous progress. But a full endorsement is much better. And while it still seems odd to read or hear phrases like “her wife” or “his husband,” it’s a good kind of strange.

And yet, just a day earlier, the Neanderthals soundly thrashed same-sex marriage in North Carolina.

Here’s the bit I don’t understand from the so-called “family values” crowd: how is the ability of two people to marry—and with it, to visit each other in the hospital, to file a joint tax return, to attend parent-teacher conferences—in any way an attack on the institutions of marriage and family? As far as I can determine, these rights make the idea of marriage and family stronger. Marriage, whether heterosexual or homosexual, should be a partnership of equals that strengthens the family unit and builds family values. Living just outside the town that the National Enquirer dubbed “Lesbianville, USA,” I’ve seen this strength in the many same-sex couples I know with children, who were parents alongside my wife and me as our kids went through day care and then school. I can’t wrap myself around the argument that it destroys families.

I’ve tried to understand the position, but I just can’t grasp it. When two people of the same sex declare their love and commitment, they build a family just as real as any straight couple. And when a heterosexual or same-sex marriage falls apart, it’s tough on both partners as well as on children and friends. I just can’t grasp how allowing two men or two women to mary has any impact on relationships between a man and a woman.

60 Minutes reports that not a single bankster has been prosecuted on criminal charges over violations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (a/k/a Sarbox)—the corpoate ethics law much-ballyhooed by reformers and much-belittled by corporations (on whom it imposed a significant paperwork burden).

As the TV program documents, there’s plenty of evidence of criminal wrongdoing, and there are people who would be perfectly willing to testify. Why the failure of will?

Could it perhaps be related to that other failure: failure to prosecute the leaders of George W. Bush’s administration who lied their way into two wars, passed billions of dollars in sweetheart deals, stole two presidential elections (and likely a few key races in Congress), and approved a regulatory climate that let the banks and polluters run amok?

Just wondering out loud. What do you think?

Never, ever think that war solves problems. It multiplies them.

Before the illegal and immoral US invasion, Iraq was a garden-variety dictatorship, similar to at least 30 other countries around the world, where dissent was suppressed but society was basically functional.

Now, it’s a wreck. And of course, US mainstream media only talk about the impact on Americans: the US soldiers (and their mercenaries) who died or were wounded or who suffered post-traumatic stress, and their families who are impacted by the hurt to these brave men and women. The impact of the war on the people of Iraq is rarely talked about.

An article by John tirman in the November 15 Washington Spectator (not yet posted on the newsletter’s website) lays out some of the litany of chaos and devastation. A few “highlights”:

• Somewhere between 400,000 and a million deaths, many of them civilian
• 3.5 million to 5 million displaced refugees
• Massive, widespread infrastructure and support failures including health care, education, clean water, sanitation, and electricity
• Thousands of desperate Iraqi women and girls turning to prostitution
• 750,000 impoverished widows
• A legacy of corruption that diverted millions of dollars from the US economy into the hands of a few well-placed privileged Iraqis, while the services being paid for either went undelivered or were so shoddy as to be useless
• And of course, widespread hatred and fanaticism directed against the West in general, and the US in particular, and a huge rise around the world in the worst kinds of extreme Islamic fundamentalism—it’s a lot easier to recruit a teenage suicide bomber or terrorist when that person is furious that you killed a close friend or relative

The first five bullets come directly from the article, “How Will We Remember Operation Iraqi Freedom?” The last two points are my own analysis. The stats that follow come from another article in the same issue, “Left Behind,” by editor Lou Dubose.

While the war was entirely a creation of George W. Bush and his advisors (particularly Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney), it hasn’t really gotten better under Obama. His withdrawal process has been slow and incomplete, and he’s leaving behind a “diplomatic” apparatus big enough to run a small country: 17,000 people including 650 American diplomats, in the largest embassy in the world (not counting several satellites around Iraq), with a $6 billion budget and another $13 billion in private contracts.

And why has Obama steadfastly refused to even consider war crimes trials?

There’s an awful lot of talk about how Obama has had plenty of time to fix the economy, and it’s his mess now.

While I am not a great fan of Obama, who has done too little, too slowly, on a myriad of issues, I think it’s time to put things in perspective:

Who led the banks run untrammeled and did nothing to stop the plunge into chaos until it was too late? George W. Bush (admittedly, with some help from the repeal of Glass-Stiegel under Clinton).

Who has now killed THREE jobs bills in a row with no meaningful alternative? Republicans in the Congress.

Who chopped so many taxes off the top end of the spectrum that the government can’t seem to fund anything? George W. Bush.

Who refuses to let their ultrawealthy friends pay even a tiny fraction more in taxes to cover the cost of job-creating major infrastructure upgrades? Republicans in the Congress—even though under Eisenhower and Nixon, people in the higher brackets paid considerably higher portions of their income in taxes than they do now.

Who took a huge surplus and turned it into a massive deficit, with the help of two illegal and immoral wars? George W. Bush.

I sure hope the public is paying attention come next November. The entire mission of the Republican Party agenda these days seems to be to sabotage the economy, stall any initiatives of Obama’s (even if they were originally proposed by Republicans) and bring government to a standstill.

It’s ugly, unethical, and I hope, unpopular next election. Throw the bums out!

If you’re in the marketing world, you’ve probably heard people say “I want this to go viral” or even “I’m going to make a viral video.”

The problem with that is that none of us can control what takes off in the public imagination, or even in the imaginations of enough of a cult that something goes viral within a niche.

Sometimes, the deliberate efforts of creators are successful. I am guessing the “Will It Blend?” ad series was designed very carefully to be passed around a lot. But other times, all the careful design in the world still results in only a few thousand pass-alongs. I’d say the vast majority of projects designed to go viral achieve very little traction—because the market recognizes when it’s being manipulated, and most attempts at deliberate “virality” contain a strong, obvious commercial element

And yet, the ones that really do go viral often don’t try to make any money. I am quite sure that Susan Boyle never dreamed that her video audition for “Britain’s Got Talent” would be seen by more than 86 million people (the combined view stats for just the first two out of 1,460,000 results for a Google search on “susan boyle britains got talent”). I just watched it again, and am still amazed by not only the power of her singing, but the contrast with her frumpy appearance and clueless personality. How could you not fall in love with that video?

Thinking about this today as I look over the comments for two recent blog entries: My 10-year reflection on 9/11 and the lost opportunity for peace, posted September 11, and a guest post by a conservative Christian friend, Steve Jennings, reflecting on his friendship with me—an unabashed progressive—despite our huge political differences, posted September 15.

I had some hopes in writing the 9/11 piece that it might go viral: posted on the tenth anniversary when everyone was once again talking about the attacks, talking about the better world that could have been created had we been blessed with visionary leadership instead of the small-minded vengeance of George W. Bush and his cronies. I tweeted the link a few times, a few other people picked it up, and response was very positive—but very limited. It did not bring me new audiences, though was reasonably popular among my existing readers. It has so far earned four comments and a bunch of retweets. and it somehow managed not to draw even a single attack from the right-wing lunatic fringe.

Steve’s post, which I didn’t promote as heavily, drew a number of retweets (which are, oddly, not showing up on the blog page), though only one comment. Again, uniformly positive, though not big numbers.

Steve’s post was not tied to a particular day and will be timely for many years; it may yet build more comments over time. The 9/11 article, other than from those reading here, is not likely to draw much attention now that almost a week has gone by.

Of course, I never had any dream that my 9/11 post would get as big as Susan Boyle, or even as big as “United Breaks Guitars” (10 million+ views). I’d have been thrilled if a couple of thousand people read it and a few dozen commented, because I’m just trying to get my ideas into the world, and I’m not using sound, video, or even pictures to do it. I still believe in the power of words.

If you find that either of those posts (or this one, for that matter) inspires you to say something, I hope you’ll share it on the comment page, Like it on Facebook, etc. Meanwhile, I’ll keep sharing my ideas, and hoping they make a difference in at least a few people’s lives.

Ten years ago, 19 criminal thugs seized control of four planes—and the world as we knew it was shed like the skin of a snake, replaced with a new and very unpleasant reality.

On this anniversary, I want to publicly thank the hundreds of brave men and women who unselfishly, courageously faced death and yet still went back into the flaming buildings…wrested control of Flight 93 back from its hijackers and crashed it in an empty field, instead of a major government building…poured into New York and Washington to see how they could help, knowing they were risking their own health, their own lives. Also, the thousands of brave soldiers from the US and elsewhere who have put their lives on the line every day. It is not their fault that we shouldn’t have even been in those wars.

But I also want to remember what might have been. In the vast emotional outpouring following the attacks, we were, for almost the only time in our history other than Pearl Harbor, united as a people. And also, for perhaps the first time ever, we had the sympathy and compassion of the whole world.

It was the first President George Bush who had called, ten years earlier, for “A New World Order, where the rule of law, not the rule of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations.” His son had a chance to make that happen.

What was needed was a powerful, emotional speech recognizing that the old, imperialist model of conduct among nations didn’t work anymore…and seizing this terrible moment as a bridge to world peace, a chance for the world to re-invent itself as something new—as a collaborative body determined to achieve greatness as a place where war is an archaic and never-again-used way to settle disputes, no one starves, everyone can get an education and decent health care, the environment is given a chance to heal, and the enemies of industrialized societies cannot get any traction. I thought at the time that this is what Bush should have done and I still think so.

Not that the perpetrators would get off, though. Bush could have called for an international criminal manhunt to bring Bin Laden and his gang of thugs to justice for mass murder, and the world would have supported it. Especially as the US, coming off the Clinton period of prosperity and massive surpluses, had the resources to fund that manhunt.

What an outpouring of support that would have caused! People of all nations would have embraced Bush as a hero, and more importantly, would have striven to put those magnificent words into practice. The United States would have been seen as giving a precious and lasting gift to the entire world. And Bin Laden probably would have been captured early on, with no negative impact on the people unlucky enough to live in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Instead, Bush told us to go shopping…squandered the surplus in two illegal, immoral, unjust—and extremely expensive—wars (not counting the domestic war on Muslims, Arabs, and poor people)…initiated dozens of repressive practices at home…blew up our credibility in the world of nations by acting as a “rogue state” (turning us into either a hated enemy or a laughingstock, in various parts of the world)…and completely failed in his pursuit of Bin Laden (Obama had to come in and finish that one). And his actions caused so much resentment against the US that it turned Al Qaeda from a tiny cell into a massive terrorist organization spanning many countries. He made the enemy much bigger.

I have always perceived George W. Bush as a small-minded bully surrounded by smart and evil advisors, and I was not surprised that he could not step into greatness. But I’d have loved to have been proven wrong. And how much safer I’d feel today if he had somehow risen to the task. He could have been our greatest President. Instead, in my opinion, he was the worst.

On this 10th anniversary of 9/11, let us think how we can still achieve that world of peace. It will be much harder now—but it is not impossible.

Yesterday, conservative commentator George Will called Barack Obama a “timid progressive.”

Will is an interesting writer. He’s far more thoughtful and articulate than the bloviators who dominate the talk channels, and he will criticize both the Right and the Left as he sees fit. I’ve often said that one of my secret fantasies is to be “a George Will of the Left.”

And I’d agree with him about Obama’s timidity. Obama talks a big, bold line, but when it comes to action, his moves are for the most part tiny little reforms, and even those don’t get pushed very hard for the most part. Obama was pretty progressive a few years ago, but his term in the Senate and his desire to be President seemed to have cooled his ardor. By the time he was elected, I figured he was a mainstream liberal, somewhere to the right of Ted Kennedy but well to the left of any recent occupant of the Oval Office.

Still, although my expectations for Obama’s presidency were pretty low, they haven’t even come close to being reached. On the timidity factor, he’s drowning the hopes of his mandate in the bathtub of timidity. I appreciate Obama’s conciliatory approach—but there’s a difference he doesn’t understand between trying to make common cause with the other side and walking away when it’s obvious the other side doesn’t care, doesn’t want to be engaged, and will do everything in its power to sabotage you.

Why do I say Obama’s not progressive anymore?
This is what a progressive agenda would have looked like:

Energy is one area where Obama did make a start, at least. The appointment of Van Jones and the attention to Green jobs were laudable, but Jones was quickly kicked out under pressure from the Right, and the momentum for Green jobs withered.

Timidity: George Will Was Right
The other big problem was that not only did his agenda lack real progressive substance for the most part, but he hasn’t been willing to use his considerable persuasive powers to retain his support base and pressure Congress. Nor is he able to simply hold the Democratic Party together long enough to move change forward. The lack of 60 reliable votes in the Senate is a red herring; during the few months he had the supermajority, the Democrats still couldn’t get much done. Look at the GW Bush administration, which never head anything like 60 votes, whose election legitimacy was never certain, and which generated significant public opposition to many of its policies. Bush was still was able to ram through all kinds of things, many of which the country has lived to regret.

From a marketing and PR point of view, Obama could have taken a leaf from Franklin Roosevelt’s book: When Roosevelt couldn’t get things through Congress, he turned to the people; he appealed directly to voters. He used Republican intransigence to build up pressure, and then at election time, was able to replace some of the obstacles. For the last year, Obama has totally blown the opportunity to blame the mess both on the past administration and on the unwillingness of Republicans to let him through to make the change he promised during the campaign. If he had used different strategy, 2010 should have seen a sweeping housecleaning in the House and Senate and a vast Democratic majority in place for the next two years. Instead, I think Obama’s cushion will be a lot thinner, and he’ll have even less room to work. The result will be a one-term presidency with meager accomplishments, and probably another round of Republican aggression.

The last Democrat who was willing to use some muscle to move his agenda forward (an agenda that was not at all popular in large sections of the country) was Lyndon Johnson. From his grave, LBJ must be wondering why Obama is afraid to lead.

Of course, the Left hasn’t had Obama’s back. We’ve given the streets to the tea partiers, where we should have been out there putting pressure on of our own (for example, not letting a health care bill move forward that doesn’t even have a public option, let alone single-payer/Medicare for All), and marshaling support for the few progressive initiatives.

Obama has eight more months to change the dynamic. Eight months in which he needs to start being very public about why change is not emanating through Congress. Eight months to appeal to the American people for support, and to get winnable candidates in place to challenge the intransigents. I wish him luck.

Yesterday, the fate of Minnesota’s Senate seat, undecided since the November election, was finally decided; the margin, out of 2.9 million votes cast, all of 312. Congratulations to Senator Al Franken.

In 2000, George W. Bush’s winning margin in Florida (and thus the presidency of the United States), was 537 votes, in an election whose legitimacy is still hotly debated (and to me, will never be legitimate). The hanging-chads issue alone could have swung the election to Gore by thousands of votes–just one among many irregularities. But in any case, it was close enough that it was possible to steal.

Years ago, I managed a friend’s campaign for local office; he was declared the winner by seven votes, and in the recount, his margin of victory slipped to four.

Four votes determined that election. If just five more people had shown up up to vote for his (entrenched incumbent) opponent, he would have lost.

Of course, it’s not enough that every vote counts. Who counts the votes is also an issue; witness the calamity in Iran.

Bernard Madoff is, by his own admission, a despicable human being. Here’s the opening paragraph of his statement on sentencing:

Your Honor, for many years up until my arrest on December 11, 2008, I operated a Ponzi scheme through the investment advisory side of my business, Bernard L. Madoff Securities LLC, which was located here in Manhattan, New York at 885 Third Avenue. I am actually grateful for this first opportunity to publicly speak about my crimes, for which I am so deeply sorry and ashamed. As I engaged in my fraud, I knew what I was doing was wrong, indeed criminal. When I began the Ponzi scheme I believed it would end shortly and I would be able to extricate myself and my clients from the scheme. However, this proved difficult, and ultimately impossible, and as the years went by I realized that my arrest and this day would inevitably come. I am painfully aware that I have deeply hurt many, many people, including the members of my family, my closest friends, business associates and the thousands of clients who gave me their money. I cannot adequately express how sorry I am for what I have done. I am here today to accept responsibility for my crimes by pleading guilty and, with this plea allocution, explain the means by which I carried out and concealed my fraud.

You can read the whole confession at the AP site, here.

Well, I’m glad he’s finally decided to be transparent. Yes, it’s far too little, too late. But it’s better than we ever got from Ken Lay…or for that matter, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the other war criminals who brought us knowingly into war on false pretenses. They don’t seem to believe in admitting even mistakes, let alone frauds. And let’ face it–the cost of our fraudulent entry into Iraq has been far worse than the $65 billion that Madoff scammed. Economists Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes put the cost at a jaw-dropping three trillion–that’s 46 Bernie Madoff Ponzi schemes, and that doesn’t even count the human cost of the dead and the wounded and the broken families and those raised to commit terror to avenge the injustice they’ve experienced at the hands of the US.

When Bush was asked in 2004 what his biggest mistake had been since 9/11, he was unable to come up with an answer. Does that mean Iraq was a fully deliberate decision? And since that time, the litany of mistakes–or, Heaven help us, deliberately wrecking things–includes Katrina, wiretapping, attrition of civil liberties, blatant cronyism, and trashing the economy. Still no apology, not even an admission of being wrong.

So on that level, Madoff’s sudden case of candor is refreshing, if somewhat disingenuous. But I draw the line at “I knew what I was doing was wrong, indeed criminal. When I began the Ponzi scheme I believed it would end shortly and I would be able to extricate myself and my clients from the scheme. However, this proved difficult, and ultimately impossible.”

Hello! Where’s the personal responsibility here? It continued, because Mr. Madoff knowingly allowed it to continue. At any point, he could have stopped the juggernaut, admitted guilt, repaid the stolen money, and maybe served five or ten years in prison. In what way was he unable to stop? I don’t buy the argument that he was helpless in the matter, any more than I buy the argument that a wife-beater can’t seek help and stop committing violence. Help is available from lots of places, but it all starts with number one: take responsibility for your behavior.