View From The Left Coast

A few weeks ago I got into a little contretemps with my congressman on the op-ed pages of the Times-Standard. I was frustrated by the fact that he and other Democrats SAY they oppose the war and various crimes the Cheney admininistration has committed, but they haven't done anything concrete to end the war most of us voted against last Novemeber, and they refuse to even consider impeaching Bush and Cheney. Despite the fact each of them took a "solemn oath" to protect and defend the Constitution, the lawless gang running this country has disregarded the will of the people, lied to them, and taken bribes from corporate donors to back this illegal and futile war, sweep away consititutional and human rights, and make our country the most hated and feared entity since Nazi Germany.

I wrote some of this in a letter to the TS, and mentioned the fact Mike Thompson had taken money from Indian gambling interests with ties to Jack Abramoff, and a lot of other folks interested in influencing his votes in Congress. This was what the congressman wrote to the Time-Standard:

"[The Times-Standard] printed a letter from a Mr. Walt Frazer which made completely outlandish and untrue comments about me. What's worse, the author knows these remarks were dishonest.

First, as everyone who has followed the Iraq war knows, I voted against authorization of the war and was one of the first and most vocal opponents of the war. Moverover, for the past two sessions of congress, I've authored legislation to redeploy the troops out of Iraq. I've also written op-eds advocating my position, and they have appeared in both national and local papers.

Second, I'm on record for supporting the closing of Guantanamo Bay and foreign "black site" prisons.

Third, I have never taken a penny from lobbyist Jack Abramoff. My campaign once received a donation from a California advocate who later employed Abramoff. Notwithstanding the fact that Abramoff was not at the time employed by that organization, I donated the entire contribution to charity.

Frazer regularly writes me espousing his views on many issues. I have responded to each of his letters, and he knows my positions. He knows that he has misled your readers with his silly and untrue assertions. Frazer is entitled to his own opinion, but he is not entitled to create his own facts.

U.S.Rep. Mike Thomson
Washington, D.C."

This was a classic ad hominem arguement, tiptoeing around the issue of whether the illegal donation came FROM Abramoff or the "California advocate" who employed him. And if it was clean and legal, why didn't he keep it? Also, the statement that I KNEW what I wrote was untrue and he somehow knew I knew, begged for a reply. I wrote one to the TS. . .and they never ran it, so I'll put it here:

Gee, the interesting things you learn in the Times Standard! Mike Thompson responded to a letter that I’d written stating not only that I wrote things that weren’t true, but says twice that I KNEW they weren’t true. The things I wrote were “Untrue, outlandish, dishonest, silly” and I “created my own facts.” I didn’t know that I knew these things weren’t true, but somehow Mike knew that I knew. And he’s a Congressman.

He got money from Indian gambling interests (I read this in the paper, but somehow knew it wasn’t true), and he gave it back, or away. I read that it was tied to Abramoff, in the Times Standard and the Press Democrat, but I knew that wasn’t true. I know that he got money from AKT Development of Sacramento, Constellation Brands of New York and at least three other producers of beer, wine and spirits, $10,000 from the Blue Dog PAC (of which he is treasurer), and they in turn got $1.2 million from folks like drug companies, computer companies, and Exxon. I know this from reading the Center for Responsive Politics website opensecrets.org.

Or rather, I THINK I know that. Only my congressman KNOWS if I know that.

I also thought I knew that Americans are dying every day because Mike and his Blue Dog pals may SAY they oppose the war, but they haven’t DONE anything, like impeaching Bush and Cheney, to stop it. That’s the only way the war, torture and lies will end, and I think Mike knows that.

Meantime he takes $10,910 from Lockheed-Martin for. . .something. And the war goes on, Guantanamo is still open, and Cheney and Co. rule the world.

But what do I know? Mike?"

I'll let you know what Mike says.

Posted by Walt Frazer at 01:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I went to see Michael Moore's movie "Sicko" last night (which was excellent, by the way), but that's my last trip to that theater, or any other in this county. From now on any movies I watch will be in the comfort of my own living room, or not at all. It’s not the movies that are the problem: I avoid 9 out of 10 of them already, since there are only so many fights, murders, explosions and breasts I’m willing to pay $13 to see ($8.50 plus $4.50 for a small popcorn). Nor does “product placement” (read subliminal advertising. . .when the stars smoke the audience smokes, which is why tobacco companies invest in movies) bother me. Bruce Willis is not my role model.

No, the thing that guaranteed I’ll never darken their doors again was the 15 minutes of VERY LOUD advertisements that preceded the movie. I haven’t watched commercial television for decades because I know that advertising has become so sophisticated that viewers are programmed without even knowing it. If I don’t watch, I don’t have to buy SUVs, Viagra or Hillary Clinton. But the notion of paying to be turned into a deaf billboard for Pfizer just doesn’t do it for me.

Besides, that level of noise hurts my ears. Generally when I want to pay for pain, I go to the dentist.

The fact that all the theaters in the county are now owned by the same company does bother me, as does the fact that almost all gasoline sold here comes from Chevron, who I understand sets the prices. So even though I can't avoid paying Chevron, I can and will avoid paying Coming Attractions Theaters.

Ultimately, of course, Borders will drive the last bookstore in the area out of business, Pets R Us will drive the local pet stores under, and if we want hardware or building supplies, we'll shop at Home Depot or do without. Exxon will choose the next president, too, and the next congressman. But they'll have to do it without my $13.

Posted by Walt Frazer at 08:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

With the chemically-enhanced Barry Bonds closing in on baseball’s famous home run record, it seems sports fans (short for fanatics) are being worn down into acceptance. Never mind he had to break the rules to do it, he was never actually convicted.

And besides, he’s a star.

So Scooter Libby gets a pass, O.J. Simpson gets a pass, Michael Jackson gets a pass, Martha Stewart and Paris Hilton get summer camp. . .a subtle pattern is begining to emerge. Celebrities, the new opiate of the masses, live by different rules. These aren’t human beings, they are super human beings. Where others have to work harder and harder to get food and keep themselves alive, it rains money on our celebrities, and that’s OK.

I recently got back from a trip to England and visited the home of a family who had the good fortune in the 1500’s to be married into the family of Henry VIII about the time he confiscated the property of the Catholic church. They got about a county and a half of rich farmland and buildings. Over the centuries these folks, with hereditary nobility, helped raid subject countries of their art treasures, and now wallow in them at home, put them out in their gardens, and get tax breaks for donating them to the government. And the House of Lords is still accepted as part of the government. . .the Ruling Class.

We, on the other hand, don’t have hereditary kings, don’t have concentrations of wealth in the hands of an undeserving, unproductive clique who may break the law, flaunt the morals and raid the treasury of the state to make themselves even richer, and become even more beloved by the masses. . .or do we?

I used to be amused by the old TV show “Queen for a Day” being such a hit in a free, egalitarian country. If we were so proud of being a democracy or a republic, what was it about the show that so appealed to Americans? Now it occurs to me that the whole idea of royalty really has nothing to do with “the devine right of kings,” or any of the rationalizations used over the millenia. People are elevated over on another because they fulfill our fantasies. We get to vicariously enjoy the power and fame they exercise over us. If they can do whatever perverted thing they feel like doing, diddling little boys, killing their wives, stealing from the poor, invading other countries, breaking the rules, we support them because they are living the pretend lives we wish we could lead.

My grandmother, born in the Austro-Hungarian Empire ruled by the (they felt) kindly old Kaiser Franz Josef, said late in life she felt the best form of government was a monarchy. She had fond memories of her family, the little town where they had lived for 200 years and a strong sense of belonging. After she saw the horrors that came after the Kaiser, who could blame her for being nostalgic?

What I’ve seen in my lifetime has convinced me that royalty and ruling cliques are not creations of law or war, but the fantasies of the masses. Reality TV and professional sports are the opium we must have, since the founding fathers denied us an official ruling class. Reality is cold, hard, and scary, and freedom means responsibility.

How else could an anthropologist explain MTV?

Posted by Walt Frazer at 04:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)