No More Bleed and Win

Political schemes are afoot as congress anticipates the report to be delivered by David Petraeus this Monday. Our pitiful and pathetic democracy has been reduced to outsourcing its national security policy to a general with a history of erroneous assessments about progress in Iraq. This is what Petraues wrote in his opening paragraph for an op-ed in the Washington Post on September 26, 2004:

“Helping organize, train and equip nearly a quarter-million of Iraq's security forces is a daunting task. Doing so in the middle of a tough insurgency increases the challenge enormously, making the mission akin to repairing an aircraft while in flight -- and while being shot at. Now, however, 18 months after entering Iraq, I see tangible progress. Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt from the ground up.”

Think about it. Three years ago he claimed tangible progress was being made inside Iraq and this very same man’s testimony is being anticipated with more reverence than Moses upon his return from Mt. Sinai.

It has come to this because nobody believes a word President Bush says anymore while the so-called opposition Democratic Party suffers from battered wife syndrome. Meanwhile, Republicans in congress are desperate for cover yet still hoping they can turn their jingoism knife into Democrats as they did after Vietnam. Hence, Bush needed a new medals wearing puppet to serve as his mouthpiece while members of congress are poised to either exploit the veneer of Petraeus’s medals or cower behind the weasel words of "bipartisanship."

It’s a sick kabuki dance. Congressional Republicans want to save face and ensure their survival in the post Bush era. If they can sign onto bipartisan legislation that establishes force reduction as a goal without a mandated target date for withdrawal, they will have the cover and save face. And later they can always turn on the Democrats with their jingoism knife when the moment is right for “losing Iraq.”

Democrats are hoping to implement a strategy of bleed and win. They oppose the war rhetorically but don’t have the nerve to follow through where it counts and cutoff funding. The Iraq war has served Democrats well, driving down Bush’s ratings and filling up party coffers. I’m not so sure they really want it to end at this point.

So after Petraeus delivers his report, enough Republicans will likely join Democrats on legislation that won’t end the war. Yes some forces will be reduced next year out of logistical necessity and the Democrats will claim they forced “a change.” But the war will go on still and more will die for no good reason. A political solution with regional input that also includes Iraq’s neighbors contributing to reconstruction is the only way to go and can’t happen with our toxic presence.

Watching this insanity I can’t help but think of Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone. Senator Wellstone, along with his wife and daughter tragically died in a plane crash on October 25, 2002. Five years ago the political climate was very different. Yet Wellstone, with the political winds in his face during a tough re-election fight didn’t waver. Prior to voting against authorizing the use of force in Iraq, Wellstone simply said,

“I’m not making a decision I don’t believe in.”

Sadly, too many members of congress don’t possess the Wellstone standard about their decisions. Most are content to let the war go on and score political points to their advantage as best they can. They care little for the blood that is shed. Unlike Wellstone, the prestige and perks of power matter more to them. Both parties are hoping to implement a strategy of bleeding in Iraq while winning at the ballot box.

I worked my butt off to elect Democrats in 2006 but to this point they only seem to care about “bleeding and winning.” They're not inclined to make policy decisions based on what’s right like Paul Wellstone. But hopefully there are enough Democrats who can be forced to acknowledge the will of the people. Perhaps not but we still have to try.

Most Republicans of course are beholden to a crazy constituency that wouldn’t know the truth if it hit them in the face with an exploding cannon ball. Sadly, too many Republicans are feculent and completely beyond redemption. Some of their senators however may serve in states with enough blue leaning voters that they can’t simply dismiss antiwar sentiments. A few house Republicans are feeling heat too.

Click here to contact your senator and here for your representative in the House of Represenatives. Let them know you've had enough of their "bleed and win" gambits. It's time to bring the troops home.

Stop the Criminalization of Mental Illness

Several days ago, I wrote about the prison industrial complex in America that is driven largely by profit motive rather than improving society through rehabilitation or crime reduction. One component of America’s incarceration industry is the criminalization of the mentally ill.

An example of this callous ineptitude is former Massachusetts Governor and presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The November 27th, 2006 edition of the Worcester Business Journal, reported that the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health refused to admit any more patients to its hospitals or units. The drastic action was the direct result of cuts Romney imposed on the agency. Perhaps he did so to burnish his credentials as a fiscal conservate prior to announcing his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination.

As Pam Belluck reported in the New York Times on March 8th (subscription required), 13 prison inmates have committed suicide in Massachusetts since November 2004. Yet even with troubling figures like these, Romney still forced this agency to stop admitting additional mentally ill patients. Those are people who can wind up in prison. Society pays a high price when aspiring presidents such as Mitt Romney care so little for the citizens they're suppossed to serve.

Universal health care has gained considerable traction as a political issue. Polls even show Americans are ready to pay higher taxes to end the crisis of affordable healthcare in America. It is imperative that any universal healthcare plan also expands treatment for the mentally ill. Perhaps I’m naïve but I believe Americans may be agreeable to accepting a substantial investment in coverage for the mentally ill as part of any package.

Celebrities have helped legitimized advocacy on behalf of mental health. Television’s Rosie O’Donnell has candidly acknowledged her personal struggles. Tipper Gore, the wife of former Vice President Al Gore was honest about suffering from depression and the importance of treatment. So has legendary journalist Mike Wallace. Credit should also be given to former First Lady, Betty Ford who shared her addiction problems with America and opened her own treatment clinic.

One Republican I’ve always had a soft spot for is New Mexico’s Republican Senator Pete Domenici. Domenici has a schizophrenic daughter and his perspective as a father helped him become a powerful advocate for the mentally ill. Yes, Domenici is a conservative and I oppose virtually everything his career stands for. True, Domenici was also recently exposed in the metastasizing scandal regarding the partisan dismissal of U.S. Attorneys by the Justice Department and should be held accountable for any laws it’s determined he violated.

Nonetheless, my soft spot for the man remains. Mental illness is an issue my family has coped with. I also have friends with mental illness in their families and appreciate anyone who has used their influence on behalf of the mentally ill. Domenici’s personal stake in the issue facilitated an unlikely friendship with the late liberal icon, Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone. Both collaborated on the Mental Health and Treatment Act of 2001.

Sadly, while mental illness has gained acceptance as a legitimate health concern rather than a stigma to be ridiculed, our society hasn’t progressed far enough in providing treatment to those who need it most. Remarkable, because mental illness is something that cuts across all demographics of race and class in society. Pete Domenici is a powerful conservative member of the Senate Finance Committee. I am a liberal blogger. Yet we both have this in common. Many of you reading this have mental illness in your families or perhaps suffer from it yourselves.

So many of us have loved ones with the inability to function without proper treatment or medication. We care about them and yet the effort can erode one’s spirit and will. For too many families, finding appropriate treatment, obtaining and paying for medication and fighting to prevent our loved ones from slipping through society’s cracks is a losing battle. As a result, the mentally ill often become a danger to themselves and society. The criminalization of the mentally ill has certainly contributed to the swelled populations of prisons.

Mentally ill people don’t belong in prison but when not properly treated that’s where they often wind up. An otherwise gentle soul with schizophrenia or depression that is not properly medicated may commit a violent crime. There is also the tragic case of Timothy Souders. As reported several weeks ago by Sixty Minutes, Mr. Souders suffered from manic depression and committed the crime of shop lifting. It's not uncommon for people who suffer from manic depression to get into this kind of trouble.

Sadly, the Michigan Department of Corrections was ill equipped to manage Mr. Souders special needs and he was put in solitary confinement. As the prison video featured in the Sixty Minutes broadcast showed, Mr. Sounders died from mistreatment. What happened to Mr. Souders is not an aberration. We citizens must ask ourselves, was prison really the best solution for a mentally ill person guilty of shop lifting?

How many more Timothy Souders are waiting to happen? One year ago the New York Times (subscription required) reported how the prescription drug law pushed by the Bush Administration and Republican controlled congress, contributed to a crisis in many states. Beneficiaries of Medicare who are mentally ill experienced massive delays in obtaining the medication they needed to function. Ironically, one of those supporters of this legislation was Senator Domenici.

How many of these people I wonder hurt themselves, or others and wound up in prison? Once incarcerated, as the Timothy Souders tragedy exposed, a prison is typically unable to treat mentally ill inmates effectively and many die in solitary. Some by mistreatment like Timothy Souders. Others kill themselves.

This is not a popular poll tested issue. But it’s a damn important one. Addressing it properly is not only the compassionate thing to do but pragmatic as well. As I see it, the only way is through single payer healthcare that incorporates comprehensive coverage for the mentally ill, renewed investment of mental health clinics as well as research and development into treatments and medication. Otherwise the criminalization of the mentally ill will continue unabated.

When writing about the prison industrial complex I asked if anyone cared. Today I’ll simply ask, what can we do to mobilize action against the criminalization of mental illness? Because the next person imprisoned with mental illness could be your brother.
******************************************************************************
ADDENDUM: My thanks to Mike Finnigan for linking the above topic on his most recent blogroundup at Crooks and Liars. This is an important issue and I appreciate any exposure for it. Also, my thanks to "Patriot Daily" of the Daily Kos diary rescue team for resuscitating my crosspost with that community.

Wanted: A Presidential Candidate With Foresight

The silly season of presidential politics is here. Posturing, fundraising and repositioning to simultaneously win support from party activists and independent voters that decide general elections. A candidate that can thread the needle with their party’s base and remain viable to the center has achieved a sublime nexus.

In our current culture a candidate must demonstrate fidelity to their party’s core principles and a maverick streak of independence. They must project manliness (or in Hillary Clinton’s case toughness) with a soft side of empathy. After six years of Bush’s insipid rule a winning candidate will also need to project gravitas but not appear above us. As women are burdened with a double standard Hillary Clinton will have to demonstrate firmness without coming off as shrill. Most importantly a winning candidate better have terrific hair.

We expect too much and too little from presidential candidates. Al Gore partly lost in 2000 (even though he really won) because he couldn’t pass the “beer test” while George W. Bush deceived voters into believing he was a “regular guy.” Abraham Lincoln wouldn’t stand a chance today but Arnold Schwarzenegger could win in a landslide if the Constitution permitted him to run. Hence, the realities of our culture require a measure of compromise when deciding upon a winning horse during the Democratic Party’s primary season. With 2008 on the horizon there is one trait I’m not willing to compromise about during the primary season: foresight.

Among the definitions listed online for foresight is,

“knowledge or insight gained by or as by looking forward; a view of the future.”

Yesterday, the Democrat's 2004 Vice Presidential nominee, John Edwards declared his candidacy. There is much to like about Edwards. He’s a self-made man who remembers where he came from and cares deeply for people struggling to survive in our treadmill economy. Conservatives denigrate trial lawyers such as Edwards but I rather like somebody who earned a fortune by defending the little guy against corporate interests.

Both Edwards and his wife Elizabeth appear to be talented and down to Earth. They lost a teenage son and Elizabeth recently endured the scare of breast cancer. These are people who can empathize with the struggles of others.

John Edwards is also an attractive, articulate man and can effectively advocate the progressive cause in our soundbite culture. Unlike Barack Obama however Edwards doesn’t speak in platitudes and takes firm stands. Edwards also appears to be embracing the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and not running from it like Hillary Clinton. So in many ways Edwards is easy for me to like. We sure as hell could do a lot worse and have.

However, his support for the Iraq War while in the Senate is like a worm in my brain. I appreciate his apology for supporting it and hope he’s sincere. We all make mistakes. I’m certainly not perfect. Nevertheless I wonder if his initial support for the Iraq War was about political expediency. Is it possible his apologizing for the Iraq War is also about political expediency? This troubles me. Politics requires a measure of expediency on a broad range of issues but matters such as war and peace should be about one’s conscious.

Admittedly, Hillary Clinton’s stubbornness on the issue also troubles me. I acknowledge the inconsistency in my reaction to both of them. There is a criticism one can fairly level at Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and John Kerry: a lack of foresight. Many of us protested the Iraq War in 2002-2003 and predicted the civil war taking place today. I’m not surprised Iraq has gone to hell and a hand basket and partly marched because I had no faith in our ability to manage the post Saddam era.

There were also public figures at the time that demonstrated foresight and courage such as Howard Dean, Russ Feingold, Al Gore, Dennis Kucinich and Paul Wellstone. Barack Obama partly propelled his candidacy for the Senate by opposing the neocons folly. Alas, Wellstone is dead and Feingold has opted not to seek the presidency. Dean is also not a candidate for 2008. As for Kucinich, I admire his commitment to peace but his overall record troubles me and I don’t believe he can win.

Obama is flirting with the presidency and has generated much attention. I suspect the Hillary Clinton political machine will dissect him and force Obama from his zone of comfortable platitudes to actually defending positions she will distort. The junior Ilinois Senator will come away bloodied.

Also, what kind of president would Obama be? My intuitive sense is Obama is a bit too corporatist and tolerant of religious intolerance. I reserve the right to change my mind as I learn more about him. Perhaps Obama will win me over but I doubt it.

Al Gore made a courageous stand against the war while contemplating the 2004 campaign. Gore also had to think about a general election dynamic at the time because he would’ve been the front-runner for the nomination. Many Democrats feared appearing weak on national security after opposing the Gulf War in 1991. Taking the stand Gore did was courageous and right. He showed principle, foresight and courage in doing so. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards demonstrated neither at the time and Obama doesn’t have the same track record of foresight as Al Gore who warned about global warming before it was cool to do so.

Gore is the one prospective candidate that can knit the Democratic Party's disparate coalitions into a coherent whole and compete effectively in the general election. Admittedly Gore has flaws such as an expanding waistline and thinning hair.

Right now Clinton, Edwards and Obama are regarded as the "big three" in the Democratic Party for 2008. Gore is head and shoulders above all of them. I hope he runs. Nobody else in the Democratic Party possesses his track record of foresight and can compete with the big three.
*****************************************************************************
ADDENDUM: My thanks to The Nation (CLICK HERE) for linking the above topic on their website's homepage under their "Newsfeed: important articles from around the web section." I can only hope Al Gore reads it and takes the hint! Also, a crossposting on Daily Kos (CLICK HERE) provoked interesting commentary - much of it critical of my post but worth reviewing.