The groups that started out being anti-war groups, like Moveon.org and others, are also doing their best to keep the Occupations out of view, in order to get Obama elected. That’s because they’ve ceased being anti-war organisations and joined the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, suffering continues in Iraq, under American and British occupation. As well, troops languish there, many with their time there extended. Troops that come back without limbs, with serious psychological problems, with other injuries. Troops who will stay there, no matter who wins the election. Yes, Obama says he’ll start bringing some troops out of Iraq, but he’ll leave many there. It will likely be that he’ll take out troops until the occupation is in danger, whereupon he’ll put them back. Remember, he does notwant to end the occupation. Besides, how many of those leaving Iraq will go to Afghanistan to fight in the “War on Terror”? A British commander has said that the Afghan war cannot be won, but that kind of information has rarely stopped American military adventures.

The fact that Obama is a Democrat and will continue this nonsense should be no surprise. FDR was the architect of the Endless War. After he got his declarations of war against Germany and Japan, not another was ever asked of Congress, who has never minded that its constitutional responsibility has been usurped. Truman and every president after didn’t bother with declarations. Roosevelt saw the war as a way out of economic troubles, especially if the wars were a long way away. All one needed was a “menace” and you were away. You always had a focus for fear. (All this not withstanding any “good” there might have been in fighting WWII.) Thousands of Americans have died in wars since World War II, billions have gone into wars, and people in many countries have known suffering and death as a result of these conflicts, which, taken together, are an Endless War.

The point is that the various occupations that the US is engaged in are not going to end with an Obama presidency. And remember, Obama’s not ruled out conflict with Iran. My guess is that when times get really tough, rather than tackling them, he’ll resort to declaring a new enemy on which to focus our fears and anxieties. Whatever “change” Obama is talking about, it isn’t a change in the conventional wisdom (a “wisdom” which is more conventional than wise). We are still to be engaged in endless wars, or an Endless War with endless bad guys. As well, wars and corporate bail outs will continue to be financed with large appropriations, without reference to how they’ll be paid for. When questions about health care, infrastructural renovation, relief for hurricane victims in New Orleans, etc. come up, rest assured the question, “How will we pay for this?” will come up. We could pay for it all if the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures were ended and the money redirected. It won’t be. That’s not in the nature of Obama’s “Change”.

As well, how “progressive” are all those self-styled “progressives” who’ve been busting their butts for a Democratic candidate. Is it the respectability that comes with being supporters one of the two “legitimate” parties? Maybe it’s in the word, “progressive”. Maybe that word sounds better in the professional world many of these people inhabit than “radical”. Maybe it’s more “grown up” to be a Democrat than a Green or a Socialist, or Social Democrat. More likely, it’s self-delusion. I’m reminded once again of the Obama tee shirt with the “O” in the form of a peace symbol.

If it is self-delusion, it will come home to people when Obama is seen, by this time next year, to be more of the same. Same wars, same system of non-health care, more corporate bail-outs.

Let’s look at policies, specifically around health care and the wars/occupations, etc. as illustrative of the kinds of approaches these clowns would take.

First health care. Senator McCain’s approach is simply cruel and sadistic. Tax the currently tax-free health insurance contributions made by employers, then give a tax credit – to be paid, not to the taxpayer, but to the taxpayer’s insurance company. He must get some pleasure out of seeing people suffer, proposing this sort of grand larceny.

Senator Obama, on the other hand, is laughing behind our backs with his proposals. He says that every American should have the same health care coverage as members of Congress. What he doesn’t say, however, is that we should pay out-of-pocket for ours, unlike members of Congress, who get it for free. Moreover, the plan rests on including current plans from insurance companies, making the big winners the insurance companies. These are the big winners also in Senator McCain’s plan. It is instructive to remember that, between them, these two have received close to $50 million in contribution from the finance, insurance, and real-estate sector over the past several years.

In both cases, discussion of taxes is made. Senator McCain would tax insurance contributions; Senator Obama talks, in ads of how a single-payer system would cause tax increases.

Tax increases, or special taxes never come up in either candidate’s message on wars and occupations, or would-be military adventures. I wonder if either would suggest a tax to cover expenses of wars, in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran. Taken one at a time, let’s look at the approaches suggested by the candidates to current or possible military actions.

In keeping with the theme of cruelty shown in his health-care, Senator McCain wants to stay the course in Iraq, get down in Afghanistan, and “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”. I guess he likes the idea of killing thousands of innocent people and destroying whole countries while killing US troops or bringing them home without limbs to languish in underfunded veterans’ facilities. Anything to keep the Endless War going. (An explanation for this level of sadism is welcome, by the way).

Senator Obama is also a proponent of the Endless War, tee shirts with the “O” in Obama replaced by a peace sign not withstanding. Obama is for a partial withdrawal from Iraq. I’m not sure why he doesn’t support a complete withdrawal. At any rate, whilst pulling troops out of Iraq, he wants to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. I wonder if either Obama or McCain has read that a senior British commander has said that the Afghan war cannot be won, and that the Taliban must be included in a solution. As well, Obama has not ruled out bombing or invading Iran. So, Obama, like Kerry and all those Democrats who won seats in the 2006 Congressional elections, is not a peace candidate. He’s a military-business-as-usual candidate.

On the environment and the need for a green economy, McCain is worse than a dinosaur, and not worth mentioning further. Obama’s so sold out now that he’s not much better. He is okay with off-shore drilling and “clean coal”, and is still at improving mileage on existing cars.

Knowing where their money comes from, it should have come as no surprise that the two of them were out there selling the “No Tycoon Left Behind” bill.

Now, the big question is why so many people and organisations characterising themselves as “progressive” are so gaga for Obama, given that he’s not very progressive on these issues. I am supporting the Green Party, whichis progressive on these issues, and others. I think it is a colosal exercise in self-deception for progressives to see the Democratic Party, or it’s nominee as progressive. Many of the organisations so behind Obama started off as anti-war organisations. Now, they have collaborated with the media in ignoring the Iraq and Afghanistan disasters, which, along with the Bailout for Bankers is bankrupting the country. Remember: no new taxes or special funding plans are in place for these adventures, not War Bonds (hard, when the war is illegal) or special Save the Banks bonds.

Until the two party duopoly is broken in this country, change by means of the ballot is going to be impossible. In more and more states, the Democrats and Republicans have conspired to keep other parties off the ballot. The media will not cover other parties except as a joke. The debates are a joke, being run by the Democrats and Republicans, through their hand-picked commission. As I said, I’m voting Green. I hope you will, too, but if you don’t, I hope you’ll vote your dreams, and not your fears. Don’t be frightened out of expressing your beliefs by the Democratic or Republican Fear Machines. Obama or McCain will win this time, it’s true. Also, don’t buy the bullshit that by supporting the Greens or Libertarians, or any other party that somehow you’ll “cut into” the Obama or McCain vote. Those votes don’t belong to them: they belong to you, until you cast them. But, the country will win if you vote your dreams and your beliefs. In that way, we can move the debate out of the exclusive hands of the duopoly, who don’t want change. Demand ballot access, open debates, and media coverage. Demand an end to the quadrennial circus which has come to replace electoral democracy in the United States.

Meanwhile, democracy is more than elections. Press elected officials; demonstrate; protest injustice; build community; be imaginative by yourselves or with your friends and neighbours. Build a new society in spite of the politicians and their backers.

I am frustrated by the prevailing idea in the media and the public in general that we can shop our way out of our energy and environmental problems. Everywhere you turn, someone is telling you to buy new light bulbs, new cars, new refrigerators, new windows. However, no one seems to take into consideration the energy cost of raw materials, production or shipping. There is also an environmental cost in adding to landfills. What would really happen if everyone acquired all these new things?

Over consumption is what has brought us to the brink of environmental ruin. We cannot consume ourselves back from the brink. I know that there are situations when it makes environmental and economic sense to replace items that are no longer functioning at an acceptable level. But the pressure to purchase for some righteous cause is just one more symptom of our society’s search for meaning and purpose in all the wrong places.

Which side are you on?

Are you with us for a guarantee of quality affordable health care for all? We need coverage that meets our families’ health care needs and is affordable, based on a sliding scale. We need government to be an advocate for us and set and enforce the rules so insurance companies put our health care before their profits. We need to be able to keep the health care that we have and have the choice of a public plan so we’re not left at the mercy of the same private insurance companies that have gotten us into this mess. We need quality, affordable care we all can count on. 

-OR-

Are you for leaving us on our own to buy private health insurance?Leaving us to fend for ourselves in the complicated private insurance market? Do you want insurance companies to be able to sell bare-bones plans with high deductibles? Do you want to start paying income taxes when your employer pays for health coverage? You don’t want any regulations on private insurance so they can keep denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and raising rates on the sick. And you don’t want any limits on health insurance company premiums or profits or on how much drug companies can charge for prescriptions.

The second alternative is very much the Republican one.

Of course, I don't support either option, because I support a single-payer, universal system at the very least.. Further, I support a system that recognizes and pays for what are called alternative forms of health care.

This is the classic false dichotomy of American politics, all of which are analogous to the biggest false dichotomy of all, the two-party duopoly that runs this country.

On several levels, this dichotomy is shameful. First, it shows that True Majority, like MoveOn.org, are nothing but arms of the Democratic Party, trying to marshal progressive support for a reactionary, corporate party. Second, this nonsense has much less to do with health care than it does with insurance, which, though not related, is another issue. It is about insurance and paying for it. Many of the supporters of this effort are unions with their own insurance schemes, which they'd like to perpetuate and get others to pay for. The UAW and other so-called "progressive" unions long opposed universal health care, because they were in the insurance business. As well, nothing is said here about the bloated, convoluted, over-technological health care system, or "health-snare system" which traps people in a never-ending regime of high-tech tests, expensive drugs, and trips to specialists. Few alternatives are ever offered, because all of this is a colossal gravy train for doctors, and hospitals and the buccaneers that run them.

It is also shameful to limit debate by this basest of all rhetorical tricks, defining their own position as the only alternative to an awful one. The rationale is doubtless that this alternative, though not the only one, is the only one with a chance of succeeding. A more honest approach would be to tell the truth that millions of Americans support the single-payer option, and that the major candidates are pushing these plans because they are supported by the medical-insurance establishment and their big money. By keeping other alternatives out of sight (and there are certainly more ideas than these and the single payer plan), the perpetrators of this false dichotomy hope they can keep other alternatives out of mind, so as to ensure that people back their plan and, more importantly, their candidate, in this case, Barack Obama.

Which side am I on? The side of free, fair, and open debate, for one. The side of universal, no-strings-attached health care in as many forms as possible. The side that wants to take profit out of health care. The side that figures that a graduated income tax system is the only sliding scale necessary for fairness.

It was in the late fifties. We had just moved back to the Detroit Area, and we listened to CBE, the CBC Radio station in Windsor, Ontario. The morning presenter was a man named Alex Pavlini. Alex, as we referred to him around the house, was a zany character who played everything from classical music to pipe bands (at six-thirty AM, obviously, Alex was of the opinion that if he was up, we should be, too), to the Weavers (banned in the United States) to rather formal arrangements of folk songs. Although he was in his twenties, one could be forgiven listening to him for thinking that he was much older. He had a decidedly British accent.

Alex did truly zany things on air. He would sometimes pick up and strum an out-of-tune banjo (not trying to play anything) and once, he produced a piece of radio drama about the first Canadian satellite, which was launched from Windsor and orbited the globe on the top of Detroit's Penobscot Building (then the tallest building in Detroit). He would juxtapose seemingly unrelated pieces of music.

Alex had other shows on the radio throughout the day. On one, he'd often read a book aloud. One of his favourites to read was The Wind in the Willows which, to this day, is my favourite book. I remember being sick one time and hearing part of it read over the course of my illness. I think it was things like that that made me hate going to school, which was far less interesting that what I heard on the radio.

Alex Pavlini, then, introduced me to music, and my favourite book. I enjoyed his antics all the way up until we moved away, to San Francisco, and then to Chicago. I didn't hear him after we moved.

When I was contemplating going to university, I considered Canadian institutions. One was the University of Windsor. I wrote for their calendar, and leafing through it, found a mention of an "Alex Pavlini Memorial Bursary". So, Alex had died. My many efforts have never led me to finding out what happened to him. Indeed, in looking at the online calendar for University of Windsor a few years ago, I discovered that they no longer have such a bursary. I expect that they consolidated a lot of smaller bursaries or something like that.

The last mention of Alex I was able to find was a mention in the Guest Book for the late Karl Haas, who broadcast from Detroit, and was also someone I much admired.

I would still like to know what happened to Alex Pavlini, and hope that someone reading this will know and tell me. Any of you with Detroit or Windsor connections who remember him, let me know.

The amount of damage to the reputation of the United States done by the Guantanamo policy is beyond measure at this point. It’s time to close this illegal prison. Comes to that, it’s time to give the base back to the Cubans, and bring the US forces there – like the US forces in every other country in the world – home.

No, what they’ve become is akin to handicappers. Far from issues, they are full of polling results, and what they mean. “Will Obama pick up support amongst men, or white women, or blue parakeets?”. Now, it’s all about who’ll win in November. This is intentional, as they know that Obama doesn’t really stand for what they’ve implied that he does, but they’ve become too caught up in elections to care any more about real political or social change. They’ve created a perception, but have been trying to keep people focused on elections and electability rather than on positions. This even after the 2006 Congressional elections, which were put forward as a referendum on the war. Voting for Democrats was voting for an end to the war. The Democrats won. The war goes on. Sufficient numbers of Democrats voted money down the sewer of the Iraq escapade every time the President asked for it.

The perception now is that voting for Obama will end the Iraq Occupation. The War Without End continued. The War Without End will continue, even if Obama does what he says in his platform. He’s committed to bringing troops home, but not all the troops. He is leaving the door open to engaging with other countries. If his recent love-song for Israel is any indication, he’ll continue the foreign policy tradition of supporting Israeli ethnic cleansing, and the response this policy has had in the Middle East and elsewhere for the past sixty-odd years. Moreover, he wants to move the War Without End east, to Afghanistan. History has evidently not taught him any more than the others involved in Afghanistan.

The War in Iraq has hardly been in evidence during the Obama push. Even good ol’ MoveOn, which started as an organization against the war, hasn’t much to say about the war. Indeed, they’ve joined the media in largely ignoring it. After all, they supported Kerry, who wanted to increase the troop levels in Iraq; Kerry was their peace candidate.

Whatever there might be that is admirable in Obama’s platform (there are some promising items, hard to get to, about transit and railways), the Endless War policy that started with Franklin D. Roosevelt will make them mere pipe-dreams. This war, and the Endless War policy which mandates a huge American military presence all over the globe cannot be sustained without making this country broke, and increasing the gulf between rich and poor. We have been on our way to becoming a banana republic for a long time now, and nothing Obama has to say is going to slow that down. Thanks to the “progressive” blogs, etc. these issues will not be mentioned, for fear of discouraging people from voting for Obama. It’s the race that’s important, and what it takes to win it. Instead of being voices for change, these folks have become touts and handicappers.

Thus, we see them become the political Daily Racing Form, discussing the chances of winning or losing, but unlike that venerable journal, Kos and This Modern World will likely hold you responsible if Obama doesn’t win because you don’t want to vote for someone who is not going to end the war and take on the troubles of the nation in a realistic way. You might vote Green or for Ralph, or for the SP or someone else entirely. You might not engage in the charade at all. By the way, even Green candidates are not immune from this Racing Form approach to politics, as can be seen from the interviewwith Green candidate Kat Swift can’t seem to get away from looking at numbers. Her remark about men over sixty voting is less than well thought out. The implication is that men over sixty are reactionary, though she may have meant something else. The point is, this had nothing to do with any issue, and shows a preoccupation with numbers. It may soon get to the point that, as Greens get elected they, too will be concerned about the horses in their stable and not about issues confronting the country. This shows a fundamental flaw in our electoral system which leads to a fundamental misunderstanding of the point of the politics of legislatures.

Because of a two-party system, we tend to see the possession of the levers of governmental power as the goal for any party. In fact, it isn’t always necessary to be in the highest governmental offices to have influence. That is to say, a party can still influence the outcome of events even when it doesn’t form a government (as in a parliamentary system) or doesn’t have a clear majority of seats in any sort of legislature. Votes are still necessary to pass legislation, and a concerted effort on the part of a minor party can influence legislation. Not only that, such a voice, representing a lot of people, will be heard on issues.

A party’s influence can be felt outside of Congress and the Presidency, too. The fact of receiving votes is a sign of the influence of the party. That, more than electing candidates is why ballot access is so important. This is one of the significant ways of registering support for issues and platforms. This is also where the preoccupation with the Racing Form has led the liberal blogs to be reactionaries, actually stifling debate. They have in the past supported Democrats’ efforts to keep Greens or Ralph Nader off the ballot, for fear of “dividing the vote” or Nader “stealing votes”. Again, the handicapper’s mentality. It’s all really a horse race, and in the end, issues and ideas are not as important as winning. Winning in the current system (which the liberal bloggers don’t seem to have much argument with, now that they are essentially units of the Democratic Party), which means supporting candidates who need to be supported by the corporate elite, has become much more important than the kind of change needed to address the problems of the country. New ideas are unwanted, no matter how badly needed.

In the future, you’ll see more comment on the political scene, by which I mean more than just the coming US elections. So far, there has been little debated in the primaries, and I expect less as the general election looms. The Democratic nomination race has been about whether you hate women because you don’t like Hillary Clinton, or whether (to a lesser extent) you hate African-Americans because you don’t like Barack Obama. I don’t care for either politically, but then I’m much less concerned about them than the policies they support, and I’m not crazy about what I’ve read and heard. As for McCain, well, he’ll get little mention here, as I don’t expect that anyone would construe the left-of-centre politics obvious in this blog as being remotely ready to give McCain’s platform the time of day. In fact, the only reason to consider the Democrats is that so many people who call themselves “progressives” are poised to support the Democratic Party’s candidate, even though he doesn’t really have any progressive positions, when you come to look at them. In that respect, at least my contribution will be, in part, to show the Democratic Party to be the (less than it was) slightly to the right-of-centre party of corporate imperialism that it is.

As I have said, the politics is more than elections. True change and progress toward social and economic justice isn’t going to happen only at the ballot box, and isn’t going to happen at all with an electoral system such as the one in use in the United States. It takes action away from legislatures and courthouses, and it takes bringing forward issues and insights not always heard or available. If we are ever going to force issues into elections (other than whether preferring someone as a candidate other than Hilary Clinton somehow constitutes virtual violence against women, for example) we must bring forward issues and views on issues amongst ourselves, and see to it that they are seen and discussed by others. This means getting beyond the corporate media, which is not concerned about the candidate’s platform or ideas, being more concerned with the platforms or ideas of candidate’s pastors. (As one who has served as a parish pastor myself, I’m amazed at all the fuss. No one in a million years would assume that a parishioner would have the same views as his or her pastor, especially most of those parishioners.) We heard much less about H. Clinton’s views on issues than we heard from leading members of mainstream women’s organizations on her candidacy. It got down to the level of being opposed to Hilary was being anti-feminist. I seem to remember that Margaret Thatcher is a woman, too, but that few progressives would support such an obvious right-wing figure just because she is a woman.

Politics is social, economic, and cultural, too. To that end, I am commending to your immediate attention the website iNTERNETSCELEBRITIES.com This site’s genius speaks for itself.

So, in the future, this blog will take on more interests. Moreover, if the other person I have in mind to become a contributor here actually takes up my offer, you may see debates right here between us, as we may very well disagree at many points. That should be welcome, though, and should, I hope get more of you to offer comments.

If Congress doesn’t, then the people should, by any peaceful means, prevent this from coming to pass, or, if it does, hold anyone who allows it accountable. Even more than the people at large, members of the armed forces should start saying no to orders that would take them into war with Iran, or continue in Iraq. Any soldier, sailor, airman, or marine that refuses to go along with these idiot escapades deserves support. Supporting the troops that won’t fight is the most patriotic thing we can do just now.

It’s time ALL US FORCES ARE WITHDRAWN FROM EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH EXCEPT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND ONLY THEN WITHIN THE FIFTY STATES. This country is going down the economic drain because of endless wars, cold hot and in between. We’ve squandered all the advantage we ever had in wealth, and in keeping out of the thick of wars because of this everlasting imperial adventure, brought to us by both major political parties, beginning with FDR.

No more war. We Americans need to make friends with the world again. Bush and his gang deserve to be tried as war criminals. This will likely not happen, sadly. But, along with them should be the various accessories before, during, and no doubt after the fact, in the Congress that voted money, support, etc. to the Iraq Invasion/Occupation. Chief among these is Senator Hilary Clinton and the former President Clinton, two of the highest-profile cheer leaders for imperial wars.

(Those who’ve read this blog before know that I do NOT support the candidacy of Senator Obama or Senator McClain, or any other candidate of the Democratic or Republican Parties. This is just so you know that my rap against Hilary is not in support of any candidate, but a simple attack on herself.)

I was finally in a position to get one, but it wasn't so easy. I wanted a Gemeinhardt 10AS, but they are phasing it out. They're phasing it out because they're moving their manufacturing facility to China, and they will change the model number to 11AS. I got one of the last four made in Elkhart, Indiana, there corporate home. I see nothing wrong with making flutes in China, but I think it oughtn't be necessary to stop making them in Elkhart. I know it's a matter of costs, but I think that it shouldn't be that, either: a Chinese flute maker ought to be paid the same as an American flute maker.

The alto flute is amazing to play. First, the sound! It is low and full and quite wonderful. I know it's only a third lower than my low-B on my C-flute, but the big diameter of the tube makes encourages a lot of low harmonics (or rather discourages the high ones). As well, it makes some nice sounds in its upper registers, and it has virtually the same range, only a fourth lower. I was thinking that I wouldn't have the full range, but I do, and easily.

Then, there is the size. It's big. I have a straight head on my flute, as opposed to the curved one that doubles back. The latter kind is for smaller players. At 6’ 5”(or 195 cm), I'm not small, and this flute feels like the first instrument I've ever owned that is the right size for my body. It does, though, weigh a bit more, so it gets to feeling heavy after a while...but, I'm getting stronger. It does take a bit more wind, too. That was the first question my friend Randy asked me at the music store. He thought'd take a lot more wind. It doesn't take a lot more, but it takes more than I often realise. I can't play quite as long a phrase on a breath as I can with other, smaller flutes. I'm getting used to that, and I hope that my wind is increasing to make up for it.

I’m able to do more things with my embouchure on this larger flute. I need to be more conscious of my embouchure, especially when playing the notes between d’’ and g’’ (actually a’ and c’’), as those can be slightly uncertain at first. The flautist’s trick of playing chords on overtones is easier on the alto, and available on more notes than just low c and c-sharp. You can play with this effect all the way up to f, and you even get this effect on one or two notes in the next octave (I am, by the way, using the names of the pitches as they are apparent to the player; you’ll need to transpose those down a fourth to get the actual pitch; alto flute is a transposing instrument).

The effect of the alto flute on people is interesting to watch. The instrument is not well known, and so it is strange to most people, even musicians. Many love it’s lower sounds, and the richness. I’m finding that it has a great deal of flexibility and a lot of possibilities given the contrast in the qualities of the different registers.

I’ve also gained a new appreciation for my other flutes, especially (so far) my c-flute. It seems so much smaller, all of a sudden. I see it’s possibilities in a new light. Getting an alto flute was almost like getting two new flutes.

On the coming Olympic Games, Summer (Beijing this year) and Winter (Whistler, British Columbia, Canada):

Much has been made of the Chinese repression in Tibet, and that this should be a reason to boycott the Beijing Olympics. First of all, Tibet is illegally occupied by China. There is no doubt about this outside of China, and the repression is just that. But, before people in the West, especially in the United States and some other Western countries let their righteous indignation get the best of them, they should reflect on some facts concerning two other illegal occupations...

The United States, along with other toady powers (notably the UK) are occupying Iraq, with thousands of troops, mercenaries, and sundry occupational personnel, causing, or having caused thousands upon thousands of deaths, and the destruction of homes, businesses, public buildings, and a city or two. As well, the United States, under the guise of its public relations shield, NATO, is occupying Afghanistan with even more toady powers. This should be of some interest to those Beijing-boycott-happy Canadians, whose troops are (against the wishes of most Canadians, to be sure) currently participating in the occupation of Afghanistan. Those troops have also been implicated in actions against innocent civilians. Maybe the Whistler Olympics should be boycotted by right-thinking people, who find occupations so offensive.

I think they should all be boycotted, for cultural and social reasons. The expense is great, the environmental damage is unjustifiable, and the vast amount of attention paid to these extravaganzas keeps us from doing something more valuable, like playing or singing music, or dancing, or playing ball with friends, or watching a local team play. Walking, riding a bicycle, exercising or meditating, paddling a canoe: all these would be more edifying and enjoyable. Forget about the athletes “working hard all their lives to get to the Olympics”. If they don’t do what they do for the joy of it, no matter who is or isn’t watching, then they are not truly olympian, anyway. Let them go to Beijing or Whistler, or anywhere. Enjoy the activities you love with the people you love, instead: your family, your friends, your neighbours.

* * *

Robins are once again to be heard from here.  Just this morning, I spotted the first three in our aspen tree.

Though I saw a robin in Hancock the other day, I haven’t yet seen one up here on the hill (or, quite properly, the tor). I hear more crows than ravens now, of course, and I see and hear more gulls. Gulls have been around all winter, which is not usual; they normally come and go with the opening or closing of the water. This morning I heard a chickadee, but no spring birds yet. That’s okay. A chickadee is good enough music for anyone.

Personally, I am on my way to getting an alto flute, something I’ve wanted for, well, more years than I can seem to remember. I’m getting my wish at last, and speaking of last, the alto flute in question is one of the last four Gemeinhardt 10AS flutes to be made at their facility at Elkhart, Indiana. Hereafter, they’ll be manufactured at a new facility in China. I have nothing per se against making flutes in China. After all, people there have been making flutes and working metal for a very long time. I don’t know that it’s right to no longer make flutes in Elkhart. And, I think flute making workers in China deserve a living as good as the one they might have in Elkhart, or Oshawa, or Bergen, or Osaka, or Karlsrühe (not that flutes are made in those other places, but you should get what I mean). Anyway, I’m looking forward to the sounds I’ll be making on this flute, and already have some ideas for a cd with much alto flute on it.

Those who fancy themselves as “progressives” are fighting over whether to support Obama or Clinton. The battles are ridiculous. White, bourgeois “feminists” are falling all over themselves to support a supporter of endless war and military involvement who supports a health-care strategy that only an insurance company could love. They support a candidate who wouldn’t be in this race – let alone the Senate – were it not that her husband was once president. Hillary Clinton is as ready as anyone to bomb Iran, and would just as soon the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan pass down their deployments in those countries to their children and grandchildren. She is so racist with respect to Arabs that she literally gloated and cheer-led the Israeli destruction of Lebanon, relishing every litre of Lebanese blood shed. She’s so “progressive” as to be proud of corporate support, and was, for many years, a member of the Board of Directors of WalMart, the well-known humanitarian retailer. Further, Senator Clinton has resorted to a kind of back-door racism in her run against Senator Obama, with her 3:00 AM ad.

On the war, both of these candidates have voted over and over again to fund it every time Bush asked. On other issues, these people have no new ideas whatsoever. On the environment, energy, climate change, infrastructure: nothing but the same old same old.

I do have a candidate worth supporting, though. Her name is Cynthia McKinney, and she is running for the nomination of the Green Party. The Greens have several good candidates, as a matter of fact.

There are those of you who will think that voting Green would be a waste of a vote. But consider: all those people who voted in Democrats in ‘06 because they were opposed to the war. The war is still going on, because most of those Democrats VOTED TO FUND IT TIME AFTER TIME. There has been no meaningful social legislation put forward in the last two years, and nothing on the environment, transportation policy, or health care reform. That was wasting votes: voting for people who do exactly what other than what you supported them for. It will ever be thus so long as people vote for Democrats or Republicans. We have a “two party system” only because it is legislated that way through limitations on ballot access, and because we have news media concentrated in very few hands, none of which hands are remotely interested in any kind of social change.

Politics is a matter of elections, but it is also a matter of citizens acting politically in other ways, as individuals making choices, as people working together to effect choices, and as citizens either taking back politics, or turning backs on it to start anew. Voting for Clinton or Obama is voting for more of the growing economic crisis and widening inequalities we’ve been seeing over the past twenty-five or thirty years. It is also voting for inactivity on climate change, opposition to sustainability, and a continuation to addiction to oil.

I want to support someone who not only opposes this war, but war. I want to support someone who thinks of the earth, and how we can live happily and sustainably on the earth, taking care of it and each other. You don’t find that with Clinton or Obama, any more than you do with Senator McCain.

The same old, unmusical sounds have to go. It isn’t even a case of the same old song. I wouldn’t dignify the sounds coming out of Clinton and Obama with the word song. It’s time for some new music here: new music for new times; a new song of peace, and a new song for the earth.