"Getting Obama Right"
David Brooks is a conservative op-ed columnist for the New York Times. This was published this morning and it bears scrutiny because the message is clear: America is bickering about ideology and partisanship not the overarching issues of 9.7 trillion dollars of debt and making it possible for all of us to work in jobs that pay a living wage. In light of the emerging caucuses next week, which is a Colorado trademark, we have an opportunity to exalt our local process of grassroots political consciousness and support the candidates and policies that we hold to be honorable and valued. How many will participate remains to be seen but a participatory democracy or republic cannot represent us unless we responsibly act as citizens, both now and in November. We all have to engage in the support of the census for the same noble purposes:
"We are born here and we are citizens."

By DAVID BROOKS
Published: March 11, 2010
Who is Barack Obama?

If you ask a conservative Republican, you are likely to hear that Obama is a skilled politician who campaigned as a centrist but is governing as a big-government liberal. He plays by ruthless, Chicago politics rules. He is arrogant toward foes, condescending toward allies and runs a partisan political machine.

If you ask a liberal Democrat, you are likely to hear that Obama is an inspiring but overly intellectual leader who has trouble making up his mind and fighting for his positions. He has not defined a clear mission. He has allowed the Republicans to dominate debate. He is too quick to compromise and too cerebral to push things through.

You’ll notice first that these two viewpoints are diametrically opposed. You’ll, observe, second, that they are entirely predictable. Political partisans always imagine the other side is ruthlessly effective and that the public would be with them if only their side had better messaging. And finally, you’ll notice that both views distort reality. They tell you more about the information cocoons that partisans live in these days than about Obama himself.

The fact is, Obama is as he always has been, a center-left pragmatic reformer. Every time he tries to articulate a grand philosophy — from his book “The Audacity of Hope” to his joint-session health care speech last September — he always describes a moderately activist government restrained by a sense of trade-offs. He always uses the same on-the-one-hand-on-the-other sentence structure. Government should address problems without interfering with the dynamism of the market.

He has tried to find this balance in a town without an organized center — in a town in which liberals chair the main committees and small-government conservatives lead the opposition. He has tried to do it in a context maximally inhospitable to his aims.

But he has done it with tremendous tenacity. Readers of this column know that I’ve been critical on health care and other matters. Obama is four clicks to my left on most issues. He is inadequate on the greatest moral challenge of our day: the $9.7 trillion in new debt being created this decade. He has misread the country, imagining a hunger for federal activism that doesn’t exist. But he is still the most realistic and reasonable major player in Washington.

Liberals are wrong to call him weak and indecisive. He’s just not always pursuing their aims. Conservatives are wrong to call him a big-government liberal. That’s just not a fair reading of his agenda.

Take health care. He has pushed a program that expands coverage, creates exchanges and moderately tinkers with the status quo — too moderately to restrain costs. To call this an orthodox liberal plan is an absurdity. It more closely resembles the center-left deals cut by Tom Daschle and Bob Dole, or Ted Kennedy and Mitt Romney. Obama has pushed this program with a tenacity unmatched in modern political history; with more tenacity than Bill Clinton pushed his health care plan or George W. Bush pushed Social Security reform.

Take education. Obama has taken on a Democratic constituency, the teachers’ unions, with a courage not seen since George W. Bush took on the anti-immigration forces in his own party. In a remarkable speech on March 1, he went straight at the guardians of the status quo by calling for the removal of failing teachers in failing schools. Obama has been the most determined education reformer in the modern presidency.

Take foreign policy. To the consternation of many on the left, Obama has continued about 80 percent of the policies of the second Bush term. Obama conducted a long review of the Afghan policy and was genuinely moved by the evidence. He has emerged as a liberal hawk, pursuing victory in Iraq and adopting an Afghan surge that has already utterly transformed the momentum in that war. The Taliban is now in retreat and its leaders are being assassinated or captured at a steady rate.

Take finance. Obama and Tim Geithner are vilified on the left as craven to Wall Street and on the right as clueless bureaucrats who know nothing about how markets function. But they have tried with halting success to find a center-left set of restraints to provide some stability to market operations.

In a sensible country, people would see Obama as a president trying to define a modern brand of moderate progressivism. In a sensible country, Obama would be able to clearly define this project without fear of offending the people he needs to get legislation passed. But we don’t live in that country. We live in a country in which many people live in information cocoons in which they only talk to members of their own party and read blogs of their own sect. They come away with perceptions fundamentally at odds with reality, fundamentally misunderstanding the man in the Oval Office.

We all go off on our own

sometimes,

homeless or not

We make family

build community in our new place

You have your biological family

a very large extended family

You will not be alone

if you precede me

I promise to follow in your lead

remembering you always.

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Mr. President: By Refusing to Look Back, You're Jeopardizing What Lies Before Us

I undoubtedly have neither the information nor wisdom to question the vast majority of your presidential decisions. But it takes neither classified information, nor wisdom, to question your decision to "move forward and not look back" regarding the Bush administration's actions leading this nation into the Iraq War, and the alleged war crimes committed thereafter.

During your inauguration you swore that to the best of your ability you would act to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Yet, your decision to circumvent the rule of law in response to the Bush administration's actions leading up to and during the War in Iraq does everything but that. Your position in this matter is diametrically opposed to one of the fundamental principles of this nation - that no one is above the law.

This is not a partisan issue, Mr. President. The concept of equal rights under the law (which also means equal consequences for the violating the law ) is both central to the United States Constitution, and a fundamental cornerstone of the American ideal. Without that concept - the concept that no man is above the law - America is no longer America. So by choosing to ignore that ideal, you're not only in violation of your oath of office, but you're striking a much more devastating blow against America than Al Qaeda could ever manage.

And I'm not speculating here. We've already seen the negative consequences of setting such a precedent. Hundreds of thousands of people have died just because we failed to hold Richard Nixon accountable for Watergate.

Had Richard Nixon been held accountable and sent to jail for Watergate, chances are Ronald Reagan wouldn't have embarked upon Iran/contra. And if Reagan had been impeached then imprisoned for his actions during the Iran/Contra episode - including flooding the inner cities of this nation with drugs (an action the Black community is still suffering from) - Bush and his cohorts would have been placed on notice that ANYONE who circumvents the laws of this land will face heavy consequences.

Thus, had Bush and Cheney known that America stood united and unequivocal in that stance, the War in Iraq probably never would have happened, which in turn would have saved the lives of thousands of American troops, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens.

One would think, Mr. President, that you would be particularly sensitive to the importance of adhering to the rule of law. While I'm in total agreement with your position that you were elected to be the president of ALL the people, there was no way you could avoid bringing the experience of the African American collective into the White House with you. That experience should inform you, in a very personal way, of the negative consequences of ignoring the rule of law.

Let me make it clear that I'm not one who subscribes to the belief that because you're a Black president that you owe Black people any more than you owe any other American. In fact, my article immediately prior to this one is in direct opposition to Tavis Smiley's position in that regard. I view Tavis Smiley's position as both self-serving and shortsighted, because the corollary of his position is that all of the White presidents who follow you owe a special alliance to White people, and as I see it, that is exactly the position that the civil rights movement was established to oppose.

But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't bring the knowledge and wisdom of the Black experience to bear as you carry out your job as chief executive. And part of that experience should be the wisdom to understand that this nation's failure to strictly adhere to the rule of law led directly to the lynching of Black people and the bombing of Black churches in the South. It also led to Jim Crow, rules that distorted the law of the land that were specifically designed to circumvent the law's intent.

So I sincerely hope that you will consider the historic symbolism of your position in this matter. After all of the hardships that Black people have gone through as a direct result of this nation's penchant to ignore the rule of law "for the better good," regardless to what you accomplish on behalf of this nation as president, future historians will look back upon the first Black President of the United States taking a position to ignore the law and "not look back" on the unjust murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people and thousands of American citizens, as grossly unconscionable, and a dark mark upon your presidency.

But even if you can live with that, current events clearly demonstrate that the slippery slope in which the nation has slid over the past thirty years is becoming even more steep as this column is being written. Who would have thought just a mere thirty years ago that the validity of war crimes, torture, and the blatant invasion of privacy of the American people would even be a subject for debate in this country? And who would have thought that a Vice President of the United States would be under a cloud for revealing the identity of a CIA agent, or that a corporation that he formerly headed would be guilty of providing American troops with contaminated water for profit?

And further, who would have thought a mere thirty years ago that American troops would be sent into an unnecessary war without the equipment necessary to sustain their lives, then when wounded, made to pay for the equipment that had to be cut from their body and left on the field of battle? And who would believe that this nation would then force those brave troops to pay for their own meals while lying in the hospital recuperating from their wounds in the nation's defense?

Yet, now you say let us, "not look back?" Oh no, I don't think so. I don't think that once the American people come out of the shock of the past ten years they're going to let that fly. They already sense that there's something terribly wrong with our government; they're just currently in shocked disbelief - but they'll be coming out of that shocked disbelief somewhere around the 2012 election.

In my opinion you're one of the best presidents that we've ever had in many ways, but there's only one chink in your armor - you seem to be unwilling to confront the GOP in an aggressive and forthright manner. Ordinarily that might be considered less than important, but in the current political environment it is just as serious a shortcoming as if you were reluctant to confront Al Qaeda.

The GOP leadership is a much more serious threat to the American way than Al Qaeda can ever be. While Al Qaeda is undoubtedly a physical threat to the American people, the GOP is attacking America's soul. They're attempting to alter what America is as a nation - and you're failure to address that issue is so counter- intuitive to your political base, who, after all, voted for change, that many are beginning to wonder if you're not part of the problem.

In short, Mr. President, we don't give a damn about the appearance of bipartisanship. In this case, to be bipartisan means, "Ok, let's comprise and just destroy America a little bit." You're political base - which includes Democrats, Independents, and Republicans - are not interested in that. We're looking to you to defend the American way of life, by any means necessary - period.

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot .com

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Beneath the Spin By Eric L. Wattree

Eric L. Wattree is a writer, poet, and musician, born in Los Angeles (Watts). He’s a columnist for The Los Angeles Sentinel, The Black Star News, and a contributing writer to Your Black World, the Huffington Post, ePluribus Media, and several other online sites and publications. He's also the author of "A Message From the Hood."

“… may my blood be the seed of liberty and the sign that hope will soon be a reality.”

Archbishop Oscar Romero

Assassinated March 24, 1980

Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador was gunned down as he celebrated the Eucharist. One day before, in an impassioned plea, he called on soldiers and members of the security forces to obey their consciences and the law of God that says, “Do not kill!” and to end the repression.

30th ANNIVERSARY

COMMEMORATION OF OSCAR ROMERO’S LIFE and DEATH

TUESDAY, MARCH 23RD AT 7:30 PM

AT ST. DOMINIC’S CHURCH 29TH and FEDERAL

LITANY PRAYER REMEMBERANCE, SHORT SKIT BY ROMERO TROUPE

PERSONAL REFLECTIONS, CRAFTS FROM EL SALVADOR and MUSIC
Sponsored by: American Friends Service Committee, Denver Catholic Worker, Denver Justice and Peace Committee, Loretto Community, Project Salvador, and Spirit of Christ Catholic Church.

Contact person – Anna Koop 303 296 6390 or akoopsl@juno.com

David Berceli, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, He does Trauma Release Exercises (TRE) He has developed a program of certifying trainers and one is named Eric Peter. A thirty-five year old ex-marine. David Bercelli was Mother Teresa's driver who studied the effects of trauma. A technique involving involuntary shaking, a reflex animals use to dispel the memory of the trauma of fleeing prey is employed by inducing this autoimmune response to letting go of the memory.

He has a website where he sells DVD's and guides for self study. He's developed a way of availing resources for people in the military and corrections to alter their lives for good.

His next training is on March 25 in Phoenix, Arizona. He has been working on these techniques and how to help people with trauma preventing them from letting go and getting on with their lives since the time he worked with Mother Teresa. Since these techniques can be learned learned by anyone there is a way that almost anyone who is experiencing trauma can have a chance to get on with their lives.

In particular veterans can have great benefits from these exercises but also people imprisoned, who suffer trauma from abuse, domestic violence, molestation, neglect, emotional abuse, who seek substance treatment and those who are homeless can break the cycle holding a grip on their lives.

The technique is called "Trauma Release Exercises (TRE). Investigate David Berceli and open a Pandora's Box and allow the energy to leave your life for good.

rauma Prevention » All About David Berceli & His TRE Method
...

“On the Importance of Being Counted” Editorial in the New York Times

Published: March 7, 2010

In mid-March, the Census Bureau will mail census forms to the nation’s 134 million households. With 10 questions, the form is one of the shortest in the history of the decennial count, dating back to 1790. But will people fill it out and mail it back? They should.

As civic duties go, filling out the 2010 census will certainly be less demanding than, say, filing a tax return or serving on a jury. Yet, the census has detractors — including several vocal conservative pundits and some Republican lawmakers who depict it as an unwarranted government intrusion. That is a distortion of its history, intent and use.

When the founding fathers established the census in the Constitution, their revolutionary aim was to ensure that the people have a fair voice in their government, by counting everyone and using the results to determine the number of representatives from each state.

The census is also used to allocate federal aid to the states and to draw electoral districts. An accurate count makes sure that federal dollars are distributed fairly and that electoral boundaries reflect the population. If the census is skewed, so are those government functions.

Another baseless criticism of the census is that it is unconstitutional to ask anything beyond the number of people living in a residence. Numerous federal and Supreme Court cases have upheld the constitutionality of collecting additional information in the census, provided it is relevant and necessary to good government.

To that end, questions about age, gender, race, Hispanic ethnicity and homeownership are used to help execute and monitor laws and programs that are targeted to specific groups. That is not to downplay legitimate debate fueled by questions that go beyond who is living where. Counting people by race and ethnicity, for example, is useful for enforcing civil rights laws, like the Voting Rights Act. But it also provokes argument about identity and equality in a diverse society.

The most important thing to know is that, fundamentally, the census is about building and rebuilding a representative democracy where divisive issues can be constructively debated. When your census form arrives, fill it out and send it back. Your country will thank you.

Denver Census 2010. 10 questions, 10 minutes, every 10 years. It’s easy; it’s safe; it’s in our hands.
For more information, please call 3-1-1 or visit www.denvergov.org/Census2010

Lentils come in at least 50 cultivated varieties, some split and others whole. They also come in various sizes and an array of colors including yellow, red, green, brown and black.

Hulled lentils such as red lentils cook faster than other varieties. In dry form, the disc-shaped legumes are closer to a salmon color than red. When cooked, the lentils turn golden and are perfect for soups or purees because they are delicate.

Locally, red lentils can be found in the bulk area at natural grocers and some of the smaller staple stores. For an Ethiopian-inspired recipe and more pictures, visit ForkFingersChopsticks.com.

About Andrea
Andrea Juarez is an award-winning writer. She writes on a variety of topics, however, her food blog ForkFingersChopsticks.com is the nexus of her love for food, research and culture. There you’ll find recipes for cooking an ingredient several ways. She makes cooking both fun and interesting.

I recently read Beans: A History by Ken Albala and he confirmed my beliefs.

Beans have gotten the shaft. They had long been considered peasant food by aristocrats and generally folks have retained some of that prejudice against them. Yes, slowly that attitude is changing as more people learn about their health benefits.

Note, however, legumes have had a loyal following with those eating vegetarian. Lentils and other beans make an excellent substitute for meat, especially when paired with grains, nuts, seeds, eggs and dairy products making them a complete protein.

When it comes to tasty vegetarian fare, Indians do it very well. Their dal (also spelled daal, dahl) is a lentil stew that is flavorful, filling and nutritious. I've posted a recipe for a dal that can be made in 15 minutes. Comfort food fast! View the recipe and more pictures of Easy Dal.

About Andrea
Andrea Juarez is an award-winning writer and a hobbyist food anthropologist. She writes on a variety of topics, however, her food blog ForkFingersChopsticks.com is the nexus of her love for food, research and culture. There you’ll find recipes for cooking an ingredient several ways. She makes cooking fun and interesting.