US Propaganda Driving Situation Toward War

Washington has destroyed trust between nuclear powers, thus raising the specter of war

What is the purpose behind Washington’s cause and misrepresentation of the Ukraine conflict?

By DR PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Ambassador Jack Matlock made an important speech at the National Press Club on February 11. Matlock served as US ambassador to the Soviet Union during 1987-91. In his speech he describes how President Reagan won the trust of the Soviet leadership in order to bring to an end the Cold War and its risk of nuclear armageddon. 

Reagan’s meeting with Gorbachev did not rely on position papers written by staff. It relied on a hand-written memo by Reagan himself that stressed respect for the Soviet leadership and a clear realization that negotiation must not expect the Soviet leaders to do something that is not in the true interest of their country. The way to end the conflict, Reagan wrote, is to cooperate toward a common goal. Matlock said that Reagan refused to personalize disagreements or to speak derogatorily of any Soviet leader.

Matlock makes the point that Reagan’s successors have done a thorough job of destroying this trust. In the last two years the destruction of trust has been total.

How can the Russian government trust Washington when Washington violates the word of President George H.W. Bush and takes NATO into Eastern Europe and places military bases on Russia’s border?

How can the Russian government trust Washington when Washington pulls out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and places Anti-Ballistic Missiles on Russia’s border?

How can the Russian government trust Washington when Washington overthrows in a coup the elected government of Ukraine and installs a puppet regime that immediately expresses hostility toward Russia and the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine and destroys Soviet war memorials commemorating the Red Army’s liberation of Ukraine from Nazi Germany?

How can the Russian government trust Washington when the President of Russia is called every name in the book, including “the new Hitler,” and gratuitously accused of every sort of crime and personal failing?

Washington and its neoconservative monsters have destroyed trust with demonization and blame of Russia for violence in Ukraine for which Washington is responsible.

Washington has forced Europe to impose economic sanctions on Russia that are based entirely on lies and false accusations. The Russians know this. They recognize the blatant hostility, the blatant lies, the never-ending crude propaganda, the hypocritical double-standards, the push toward war.

Simultaneously China is experiencing hostile encirclement with Washington’s “pivot to Asia.”

By destroying trust, Washington has resurrected the threat of nuclear armageddon. Washington’s destruction of trust between nuclear powers is the crime of the century.

On February 24, I held accountable Alexander J. Motyl and the Council on Foreign Relations for publishing on February 5 a large collection of blatant lies in order to create a false reality with which to demonize the Russian government. I observed that the publication of ignorant nonsense in what is supposed to be a respectable foreign policy journal indicated the degradation of the Western political and media elite.

I did not think things could get any worse, but one day later I came across Andrew S. Weiss’ article in the Wall Street Journal. 

Weiss’ article is the most amazing collection of misrepresentations imaginable. It is impossible to believe that the vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment could possible be so totally misinformed. The false reality that Weiss creates precludes any diplomatic resolution of the conflict that Washington has created with Russia.

What is the explanation for Weiss’ misrepresentations of Putin, the origin of the conflict and the cause of its continuation?

Recalling the confession of Udo Ulfkotte, an editor at the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, that he published under his name articles handed to him by the CIA and that the entire European press does the same, was Weiss handed the disinformation by the CIA, or by Victoria Nuland, or is the answer simply that Weiss worked on Russian, Ukrainian and Eurasian affairs at the National Security Council, the State Department and the Defense Department and is one of Washington’s propaganda operatives currently operating out of a think-tank?

The more important question is: What is the purpose behind Washington’s cause and misrepresentation of the conflict? Was the destruction of trust between nuclear powers intentional or a consequence of other purposes? Is Washington simply using its ability to control explanations in order to cover up its involvement in the overthrow of a democratically elected government, an outcome that has gone bad? Or is the answer merely that Washington is peeved that it failed to get its hands on Russia’s Black Sea naval base in Crimea and has had to give up, at least for now, on getting Russia out of the Mediterranean and out of the Russian naval base at Tartus, Syria?

As I explained today to an international conference hosted by institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Moscow State Institute of International Relations, the neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the prevention of “the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere” with sufficient resources and power to be able to serve as a check on unilateral action by Washington.

When Russian diplomacy blocked Washington’s planned invasion of Syria and planned bombing of Iran, the neoconservatives realized that they had failed in their “first objective” and were now faced with a check on unilateral action. The attack on Russia instantly began. The $5 billion Washington had spent funding NGOs in Ukraine and cultivating Ukrainian politicians produced the overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government. Washington imposed a puppet government that instantly employed violent words and deeds against the Russian population, resulting in the secession of Crimea and the formation of other break-away provinces.

With English as the world language and the compliant media or presstitutes in Washington’s service, Washington has been able to control the explanation, blame Putin for the crisis, and force Europe to breakup its economic and political relations with Russia by imposing economic sanctions.

In a vain and failed attempt to keep the US as the Uni-power capable of dictating to the world, the neoconservatives have recklessly and irresponsibly resurrected the threat of nuclear armageddon. The neoconservative dominance of US foreign policy makes impossible any restoration of trust. Washington’s propaganda is driving the situation toward war. As neither Washington nor the Russian/Chinese alliance can afford to lose the war, the war will be nuclear. Any survivors will be doomed by nuclear winter.

The entire world must quickly become aware of the danger and confront the evil regime that the neoconservatives–the Sauron of our world–have created in Washington. To do otherwise is to risk life on earth.

This article originally appeared on paulcraigroberts.org. Reprinted with permission from the author.

---

Mirrored from PressTV.com

--Joe

The Bassler Obscenity Roles On

How the gunning down of a man simply on the accusations of another is "justified" defies all logic, reason and LAW. The Time-Standard's Thursday, August 16, 2012 headline says: "Bassler shooting justified, DA says. Report details months leading up to Bassler's death." What months of "details" leading up to a couple cowards killing a man from ambush has to do with "justifying" his murder is beyond credulity. Yet, this is the propaganda Grant Scott-Goforth wants everyone to swallow.

Crimes of murder committed "beyond a reasonable doubt" are decided by jury of one's peers, accepted and legally established by a sitting Judge, NOT some cop. But then, President Barack Obama assumes such unconstitutional authority, why not some Sheriff?

Aaron Bassler may well be guilty of some of these accused crimes, but then, we'll never know because the gutless police never bothered to arrest him and present their evidence in a court of LAW. No self-respecting community can honestly stand for this kind of defacto lawlessness. Is everyone so stupid that they don't realize that if the police get away establishing their right to gun down "anyone" at will they can do it to you too? Has Ronald Reagan's Latin American death squads finally reach the North Coast of California?

---

[UPDATE :: Monday, August 20, 2012]

Terrorism is Terrorism

"We whitewash history when we ignore the fact that states sometimes engage in terror, too."
[Picture Source]

--Joe

Impunity Rules Supreme

Times-Standard's Matt Drange reports today that: “Fatal shooting ruled to be justified; report found no unlawful conduct in police shooting of Eureka man.”

This judgment was expected, but it is no less the tragedy. Not because another person is summarily shot down by the police, but because of the defacto license it gives all local police to continue and expand their assault on the general public.

Look at how the District Attorney Paul Gellegos and Assistant District Attorney Wes Keat's use of “after-the-fact” information to demonstrate unsubstantiated and unprovable “intent” to justify the killing, if not murder.

"Sequoia's system helps explain how such a senseless thing takes place,” Keat said in an e-mail to the Times-Standard. “He made it clear in an intense physical struggle over the gun that he intended to use it on the officers. It is a tragic thing but no part of the outcome was the fault of the officers.” [Emphasis added]

Previously EPD Chief Garr “Neilsen said that the report came back as he expected, adding that Sequoia would have killed Coon had the officers not reacted the way they did.”

There is absolutely no proof that what they say was justified at the time of the killing. 

The last time I checked, all law-abiding citizens possess the legal right to own and carry firearms for legal self-defense and other purposes. The reality however, is that in these Northern Counties, the mere possession of such a weapon will get you summarily dead. The police position and implementation, that is continued and justified in this ruling is that WITHOUT any proof of intent, other than simple possession, they are legally justified to act with lethal force.

Since the death of this boy, not one letter was published in the Times-Standard that addressed some of the outstanding issues and questions involved. As far as this community is concerned, no doubt due to how the Times-Standard used “after-the-fact” information to bias their reports, the police were totally justified right from the start.

What they reported is that David Sequoia was, without any justifiable provocation, physically assault by Kris Coon. At that point, Sequoia had the legal right to resort to a weapon in his self-defense. That's point number one. Point two is, neither one of those police officers knew for an absolute fact at the time they shot Sequoia that it was actually his gun. They just plain got lucky. To say he was going to kill Coon or the police officers is an unsubstantiated assumption that led to his unjustified death.

Point three is, Kris Coon's unwarranted and unjust actions mixed with police knee-jerk reaction to use lethal force as a first response caused that boy's untimely death. He is responsible and needs to bear some accountability too. Problem is, the only way you can justify what the police did is justify what Coon did.

The bigger problem that faces everyone, whether they like it or not, is that when people like Kris Coon can get away with going at their neighbor in the same way he obviously did, pits neighbor against neighbor. More than that it tends to make the police the enemy, rather than a friend to call on in a time of need.

The Joe Blow Report has written extensively about this right after the incident. The Report raised some questions, conflicts and contradictions about the incident as reported by the Times-Standard. They reported this outcome as a foregone conclusion - no harm no foul. The cozy relationship expressed in this kind of continued reporting exposes compromised reporters. This community deserves better. Here is the list, starting with the first article:

1. Who Really Killed David Sequoia? – March 19, 2010
2. Basic Freedom: No Right To Touch
3. Personal Safety in Eureka is an Illusion
4. Stacking the Deck – March 24, 2010

What we'd like to know is WHY no one at the Times-Standard or anyone else has not asked these outstanding questions and got some explanations for the rank contradictions. Everyone (mostly) seems to think EPD Chief Garr Nielsen is doing a good job with the police department. How that is justified when he can make this kind of a statement is beyond reason: "It appeared to be a pretty clear-cut case,” Nielsen said. “It seemed from the outset that the officers used necessary force given the circumstances.” When he answers and defines these "circumstances" maybe then he'll have some credibility. Until then, Impunity Rules Supreme.

--Joe

Nanny State Future

Noam Chomsky: "The Center Cannot Hold: Rekindling the Radical Imagination"


Is the “Tea Party Movement” slated for greatness? If you think they're just a “flash in the pan” you might want to read what Noam Chomsky says about what is happening in America. More and more the lines between corporate America and the working poor are being drawn tighter and tighter. Obama's message of “hope” is shown more and more a joke on everyone that voted for him. Freedom-loving American voters believe they have some say in their government. Obama has shown everyone that they do not. Government betrayal of their people is universal. “Radical Imagination” is something nearly beyond reach for most of humanity. For the people to practice actual democracy would require taking responsibility for their actions and then standing accountable what they do or do not do. Continuing to cooperate with these criminals by voting in one corrupt politician year after year rank stupidity or deliberate criminal complicity. As the people start to move so do the thugs that protect and defend the multinationals, the financial conglomerates and their Washington cohorts. Who wins? Who loses? If history has anything to say about it, our future as a free people looks extremely bleak.
 
Move beyond the propaganda and read or listen to Noam Chomsky's speach compliments of Democracy Now: Noam Chomsky: "The Center Cannot Hold: Rekindling the Radical Imagination"
 

---

Or you can read the complete speach here:

--Joe

Stacking the Deck

[UPDATE :: TUESDAY, April 6, 2010:  "Eureka" Slaughter NOT an Aberration Either]
[UPDATE Below]

This is the Report's fourth commentary on the police shooting of David Sequoia. No doubt not the last either. The Times-Standard newspaper continues to tell everyone what happened according to the survivor's as if everything they say is the truth. They continue to refer to Sequoia as a criminal “suspect” in the process of assaulting everyone with a gun; “a grave threat.” That is the unsubstantiated opinion Greenson and the Times-Standard continue to publish made by Chief Garr Nielsen. This Report does not dispute the fact that those officers were put into a threatening situation. To say Sequoia put them there is unsubstantiated nonsense.

Thadeus Greenson continues his reports in the Wednesday, March 24, 2010, Times-Standard another one-sided account of what happened to David Sequoia in his article: “Two officers in Eureka shooting identified.”

If you hadn't read all the other reporting with some objective scrutiny or careful consideration you'd think that there was some wild-eyed, pistol-packing criminal type, some thief, rampaging through a peaceful neighborhood, threatening, shooting, attacking and fighting with innocent people, including a local resident trying to protect his family and property, when he was consequentially confronted by the police and subsequently shot when he “twice” pointed “his” revolver at a police officer. All open and above board, totally legal and justified.

Greenson doesn't say that the guy shot in the head execution-style had first been assaulted by the local resident, Kris Coon for simply “lurking about” in the alley. Notice how Greenson twists or slants what Coon earlier reported, “Coon said he wound up in a confrontation with Sequoia, who was still armed with a hand gun.” In another report, Greenson writes, “Once the officers saw the gun, which was still in Sequoia's hands, Coon said they instantly began yelling at Sequoia to drop the weapon.” Nielsen continues, “officers issued numerous verbal commands, and also attempted to physically wrestle the weapon from Sequoia.” Notice now what Coon says about what just transpired, “Finally, Coon said, his grip on the barrel of the weapon began to weaken, and he felt the gun turning toward him.” So what the officers actually saw was NOT a gun in Sequoia's hands, but a gun in both Coon and Sequoia's hands. So why did they jump to the conclusion that the gun belonged to Sequoia and that he was the aggressor? Coon had just said he had jumped Sequoia and slammed him to the ground in the mis-belief that Sequoia was a thief. He does say, however, that when the police officers arrived they found Coon and Sequoia on the ground fighting, as it turns out, over the possession of a handgun. Coon says he had a hold of the barrel, “desperately trying to keep it pointed away from him and his house, where his 12-year-old daughter and wife were inside,” and Sequoia apparently had the gun by its grip, the only way he could fire the gun if he was an actual threat to anyone. Greenson says both officers along with Coon tried to wrestle the gun away and when in the melee Coon supposedly pointed the gun at or near officer Patrick Bishop's face he shot him in the chest. The coroner says that was a fatal shot. When, somehow, Sequoia was still able to bring the gun to bear on Bishop his Sargent Rodrigo Reyna-Sanchez put his gun at the base of Sequoia's head and shot him instantly dead.

On the obvious face of this, what's wrong? First, according to Kris Coon, Sequoia did NOT threaten Coon. Coon “confronted” Sequoia. He freely admits he was the aggressor and jumped without any provocation Sequoia “slamming” him to the ground. Sounds to me like Coon was the stronger of the two. Next Greenson says the police officers, once they too realized there was a gun began wrestling with Sequoia trying to get the gun away from him; immediately identifying him as the “aggressor.” Apparently, this effort was done with only one hand because their other hand held their own guns. Point being, to hear their accounts you would think Sequoia was some kind of super-strong gorilla able to overpower all three men while holding onto the grip or butt of the gun. That would be the part with the least amount of leverage. It seems to me that if Sequoia was able to overpower three men sufficient to threaten their lives, two of the men trained police officers no doubt in good physical condition, he certainly could have overpowered Coon and shot him straight away. He certainly would not have waited to use that gun until slammed to the ground. At that point Sequoia had the legal right to use that gun for self-defense if he so chose. Apparently, according to Greenson, that is what he had just done when confronted in a dispute by two of his supposed friends over on California Street.

This Report is not taking issue with the Eureka City Police officers justifiable right to shoot that man to death given that he was an actual threat. Unfortunately, everything that was said by Kris Coon, the officers involved as reported by John Driscoll, Thadeus Greenson and the concurring statements of Chief Garr Nielsen do not justify that man's untoward death. What they do show is that everyone involved jumped to unsubstantiated conclusions, conclusions totally without merit and acted aggressively on them resulting in the untimely death of that man. That seems to be an inherent problem within the Eureka Police Department that Chief Garr Nielsen has done nothing to fix.

All our lives, regardless of what class, race or religion, are just as valuable as any police officer. No one forced any of these people to be police officers. Doing their job, dealing with ongoing situations of the type involving Coon and Sequoia obviously forces quick, life-changing decisions. That's what they freely and personally took on to themselves. That's part of their job. That is what all taxpayer's pay them to do. That does NOT make them heroes nor does it make them more important or their lives anymore valuable than anyone one else. When people inadvertently or purposely break the law, it is the “LAW” that they offend, not the police officer or the police department. Police officers routinely act like it is a personal affront anytime someone seems to personally impugn them or their integrity. The fact that they wear a badge and carry a gun does not make them god. It's too bad these reporters, and the Times-Standard management, don't understand that fact and report with a little more independent objectivity. In the long run, since it is the responsible thing to do for the community the Times-Standard supposedly serves, they just might save someone's life, even someone like Kris Coon.

[UPDATE :: Monday, April 5, 2010]

Filibuster Lying
What does it mean when we can't get the simple facts from the newspaper anymore? Either the news-conscious public are so inured or dumbed down the media believes they can say anything and everyone will go along. Tragically, the media and their whore-mongering politicians backed up by a corrupt judicial system seem to think they not only have the right to tell people what to think, but HOW to think.

It was this atrocity hitting the American news that began the end to the Vietnam War. That guy with the gun was a South Vietnamese General, Chief of National Police and the man he publicly executed a man in handcuffs ONLY accused of being a Viet Cong soldier. Why? Because the majority of American's couldn't stomach being responsible for such an atrocity. The atrocity wasn't the brutal and summary public murder of that young man, but the blatant, in your face attitude, repudiating rule of law, justice and human rights; everything America used to stand for and that was worth sacrificing your children for. These same atrocities are going on constantly, only this time they are carried out by U.S. forces in other obscure places. This time, because it is American men and women enforcing this despotic system of the wanton butchery of all that is right, decent and legal, while they try to hide behind their so-called rules of a phony war, it's okay to lie, stack the deck and preach incessant propaganda. This is the latest “act” of self-defense in this war against the masses: How Americans are propagandized about Afghanistan - written by Glenn Greenwald and contains the following Headline: U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan are committing atrocities, lying, and getting away with it.

March 22, 2010, by Jerome Starkey, war correspondent for the Times of London. Here's a partial excerpt:

It’s not the first time I’ve found NATO lying, but this is perhaps the most harrowing instance, and every time I go through the same gamut of emotions. I am shocked and appalled that brave men in uniform misrepresent events. Then I feel naïve.

There are a handful of truly fearless reporters in Afghanistan constantly trying to break the military’s monopoly on access to the front. But far too many of our colleagues accept the spin-laden press releases churned out of the Kabul headquarters. Suicide bombers are “cowards,” NATO attacks on civilians are “tragic accidents,” intelligence is foolproof and only militants get arrested.

If you think this kind of crap, lies to justify the murder, only exists in far away places, you'd better open your eyes, look down the street and think again. The local Times-Standard is no better than this:

But far more often, Americans are completely misled about events in Afghanistan by the combination of false official claims and mindless stenographic American "journalism." And no matter how many times this process is exposed -- from Jessica Lynch's heroic firefight to Pat Tillman's death by Al Qeada -- this relentless propaganda machine never seems to diminish.

--Joe

Is President Obama Too Intelligent for America?

Did America elect a President that is too intelligent for them?

After the last President, Republican and viscerally stupid, maybe America wanted more than just a change in color - race?

David Axelrod on Morning Joe this morning said that the Health Insurance legislation was a complicated matter that even President Bill Clinton had difficulty explaining. Perhaps it's "complicated" because they're trying to sell America on a "bill-of-good" while trying to get them to believe something else. Later I was listening to Dylan Ratigan on Morning Meeting interview Tom Harking, Democrat from Indiana and he laid it all out -- exactly what everyone is going to get -- the SHAFT!

Nothing too complicated in what he had to say.

Later I came across this bit of wisdom from Chris Floyd that explains the reason for the complications:

Years ago, during the run-up to the first Gulf War, I wrote a short piece about the sea of propaganda that was flooding the country, and the difficulty of cutting through to the blood-and-iron reality behind it all. This is the whole of that piece:

I think we are living in a world of lies: lies that don't even know they are lies, because they are the children and grandchildren of lies.

One of the hardest things about doing stories like the ones honored here tonight is that the reality of our world is buried under so many layers of official deception and well-cultivated public ignorance about our history and our political system. Even if you break through somehow, momentarily, and hold up a fragment of the truth, most people have no context for dealing with it. It's like a bolt from the blue, they can't process the information. And so the sea of lies closes over us again, and again, and again.

But I don't know what else we can do, except to keep on telling as much of the truth as we can find, to anyone who will listen: reclaiming reality, fragment by fragment, one person at a time.

It's an endless task -- maybe a hopeless task -- but the alternative is a surrender to the worst elements in our society -- and in ourselves.

In that regard, the Joe Blow Report, aside from the stated reasons, and we're sure to those that read his observations here and elsewhere realize that the Report is dedicated to the "intelligent," the "thinking" and the "reasoning" reasonable person.

That is why the moronic, stupid, imbecilic assaults and attacks against the object are dealt with and defined for what they are. Furthermore, it should also be said that to do justice where justice is do - President George Bush WAS NOT STUPID!

He was, in our estimation, probably borderline genius. He did what President Obama hasn't yet, and I might add Joe Blow, learned to do. Simplify, simplify and simplify matters so that anyone can understand.

As you can see, the news-fast is over . . .

[Picture source]

--Joe

Follow Up to the Follow Up Question about Pot

Update :: Thursday, April 2, 2009 --

The success of drug decriminalization in Portugal - by Glenn Greenwald

The article includes a link to the just published article in the Time's by Joe Klien advocating marijuana legalization. Greenwald also details why President Obama is not releasing the "torture memos" as ordered. That's of interest to the Report because of Taser use and torture.

Citing Failed War on Drugs, Former Seattle Police Chief Calls for Legalization of Marijuana and All Drugs

Here is an interesting interview on Democracy Now with Norm Stamper about why drugs, specially marijuana, should be legal in America. Norm Stamper is a thirty-four-year police officer who retired as Seattle’s chief of police in 2000. He is an advisory board member of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and a speaker for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. He is the author of Breaking Rank: A Top Cop’s Exposé of the Dark Side of American Policing."

Here's an excerpt relating to his common sense efforts to reform marijuana laws:

NORM STAMPER: I actually support the legalization of all drugs. And in fact, the more dangerous or sinister or sensationally reported the experience of certain drugs, the greater the justification for the government, as opposed to drug cartels and street traffickers, to regulate that commerce. There’s been more harm done by the drug war than good. We have spent a trillion dollars prosecuting that war since Richard Nixon proclaimed drugs public enemy number one and declared all-out war on them.

And what do we have to show for it? While rates can fluctuate, drugs are more readily available today at lower prices and higher levels of potency than ever before. So it’s a colossal failure. And the only way to put these cartels out of business and to restore health and safety to our neighborhoods is to regulate that commerce as opposed to prohibiting it.

*****

NORM STAMPER: Last week in Minnesota, before a state house committee, a committee that is considering medical marijuana, I was accused of disrespecting police officers. I quickly corrected that police chief, who was wearing a yellow tie with the language “police lines, do not cross." I apologized if I gave the impression, because I have the deepest respect for frontline police officers. They didn’t make these laws. They are victims of the tension and the hostility that is associated with enforcing or prosecuting the drug war. So it’s not our frontline cops that we need to be concerned about.

The vast majority of police officers, I believe, would legalize marijuana today. They have varying views on the other drugs. Many officers, including police chiefs and sheriffs, have whispered their support to me. When I say, “Well, may I quote you?” the response is, “What have you been smoking? No, you cannot do that.”

You know, some have suggested that President Obama’s dismissal of the marijuana issue last week in the online town hall meeting was done because it’s the third rail. Well, we’ve made it that. Americans have, in fact, bought the propaganda of the drug war. We can’t conceive of it as a public health issue, this whole issue of drug use and drug abuse and prevention and education and treatment, as well as enforcement. We need to rethink it. We need to have the courage, the will and sort of the analytical take on the systemic implications that are associated with the drug war and recognize that there is a much better alternative out there. And I think a whole lot of cops understand it. Certainly, the 10,000 members of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition get it.

Read the complete interview here.

Any government truly sensitive to the spoken needs of the people would certainly understand that the father-knows-best approach to government imposed by the conservative elite went out with the Dark Ages. The Democratic principles embodied in a "representative" form of government requires responsible, enlightened (certainly informed) maturity in the majority of those doing the picking. That is, if the system of government is to work as Constitutionally designed. The electorate certainly do not need some wet nurse telling them when, where and how much in between diaper changes. The change in thinking observed in a few courageous people in this country is hopeful. Unfortunately, it's 40 to 50 years too late when you see the legacy we've all inherited.

--Joe