Nixon's Shameful War on Marijuana Users

History is replete with examples of governmental attempts to modify human behavior by imposing prohibitions. All attempts failed, most of them miserably.

In the 16th century, coffee was banned in Egypt and supplies were burned. Coffee consumption increased rapidly.

In the 17th century, the Tsar of Russia executed people caught using tobacco. Among unexecuted Russian citizens, tobacco usage increased.

Similar results obtained when tobacco usage was banned in Bavaria, Saxony and Zurich. Violators were executed, by order of the Sultan. Among survivors, tobacco usage increased.

In England, the 1736 Gin Act was intended to increase prices to the extent consumption would decrease. General lawbreaking resulted. Gin consumption increased.

In China, a 1792 law required strangulation of keepers of opium shops. Opium usage increased.

San Francisco County recently banned smoking in all public buildings. This ban was deemed to include the jailhouse. The price of black market jailhouse cigarettes immediately jumped to $120 per pack.

The Puritans who sailed to Plymouth Rock in 1620 should have provided a clue. They packed 14 tons of water as emergency backup for 42 tons of beer and 40 tons of wine.

America imposed a tax on distillation of whiskey in 1791. The resulting civil protests quickly grew into armed rebellion against the new government. In 1794 President Washington called out the militias of several states to form an army roughly the size of that which defeated the British, put down the rebellion and established the right of the federal government to make war against its own citizens.

But the Army couldn't enforce the Whiskey Tax, which was repealed in 1803, long after unlicensed stills relocated to secluded forests in remote mountains in eastern Kentucky, where alcoholic beverages have been produced under shining moons for over 200 years.

Between 1875 and 1914, 27 states and cities banned smoking of opium. In those localities, opium consumption increased sevenfold. Abraham Lincoln earlier called this one right:

"Prohibition... makes a crime out of things that are not crimes... and strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."

Under President Obama, a few fragile green shoots are becoming apparent to those who seek to provide a dose of Hope, Change and basic sanity to America's war on citizens who use marijuana.

Which leads inquiring minds to ask: Where did this insane and inhumane war come from, and were the reasons valid?

The answer to the first question: Richard M. Nixon.

The answer to the second question: No.

Nixon initiated America's War on Drugs based almost solely on personal hateful racial bigotry and a profound level of ignorance of history.

Nixon was recorded telling his chief of staff:

"You have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to."

Those emotions have have blindly controlled national policy on marijuana ever since.

Under President Johnson, the progressive 1966 Narcotic Addiction Rehabilitation Act allowed treatment as an alternative to federal prison. A 1968 amendment allowed suspended sentences and for the criminal records of people who stayed out of trouble for a year to be expunged.

In 1969 the Supreme Court ruled the Marijuana Tax Act, the 1937 law that made marijuana illegal, was unconstitutional. In response the Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Control Act, commonly called the Controlled Substances Act, was passed in 1970.

Some provisions of the 1970 law were progressive. Congress determined that prisons were overflowing and the courts were ineffective because, due to the barbaric 1951 Boggs Act, they had no flexibility to make the punishment fit the crime. Mandatory sentencing requirements that treated a casual user possessing a quarter-ounce of marijuana the same as a determined dealer with a wheelbarrow full of heroin waiting outside an elementary school for his customers to be dismissed were recognized as a failed policy and were eliminated.

Other provisions were not progressive. With some Congressional misgivings, marijuana became a Schedule I substance, a drug with high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use. And also because it was used primarily by anti-war protesters and hippies, who were intent upon undermining Nixon's anal-retentive policies.

But Congress had lingering concerns about the dangers and medical benefits of marijuana. To resolve those concerns, Congress created the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse early in 1971. Unfortunately, nine of the 13 members were appointed by Nixon.

Because Nixon was personally opposed to drugs, he stuffed the commission with hardliners. The chair was Raymond Shafer, a former prosecutor and Republican governor of Pennsylvania, well known for his tough law and order approach to drugs. At the time Shafer coveted, actively sought and was being seriously considered for lifetime appointment as a federal judge.

The commission sponsored over 50 research projects, conducted numerous opinion polls and held many hearings, at which it took thousands of pages of testimony. To this day, the commission's work stands as the most thorough, unbiased study of marijuana ever conducted by the federal government.

Recently released tapes of 1971-1972 Oval Office conversations concerning Shafer and his commission reveal that Nixon, in his uniquely homey style, provided staff with extraordinarily lucid explanations for a number of societal issues that had long perplexed learned scholars. One of his more startling revelations explained the cause of decline of ancient Greek civilization:

"You know what happened to the Greeks. Homosexuality destroyed them. Sure, Aristotle was a homo, we all know that, so was Socrates."

Per Nixon, a similar fate befell the mighty Roman Empire:

"Do you know what happened to the Romes, Romans? The last six Roman emperors were fags... The last six. Nero had a public wedding to a boy."

And the Roman Catholic Church as well:

"You know what happened to the Popes? Its all right that, po-po Popes were laying the nuns, that's been going on for years, centuries, but, when the Popes, when the Catholic Church went to hell in, I don't know, three or four centuries ago, it was homosexual..."

Britain and France suffered the same terrible affliction:

"Now that's what happened to Britain, it happened earlier to France."

Russia escaped this moral plague, only to be engulfed by another:

"Why the hell are those Communists so hard on drugs? Well why they're so hard on drugs is because, uh, they love to booze. I mean, the Russians, they drink pretty good."

Nixon offered an eminently reasonable explanation for why booze is beneficial to society while marijuana is not. Nixon, who was known to drunkenly stagger through the halls of the White house while having incoherent one-sided conversations with portraits of presidential predecessors, piously explained:

"People use marijuana to get high."

"People use alcohol to have fun."

But these were merely gratuitous side comments provided to enliven discussions about Shafer, his commission and its findings.

The tapes make evident the extent and direction of Nixon's preconceptions about the causes of marijuana's increasing popularity:

"Every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish."

Anti-war protesters represented the disastrous results of America's lenient drug policy:

"These uh, more radical demonstrators that were here the last, oh, two weeks ago. They're all on drugs. Oh yeah, horrible..."

The commission took almost 12 months to complete its work. On a number of occasions during that time, Nixon prematurely proclaimed the commission's conclusions and recommendations.

His comments to his staff and to Shafer, made at various times, in equally coherent terms, included:

"I think that's what you want to do, take a strong line."

"Now, this is one thing I want. I want a Goddamn strong statement on marijuana. Can I get that out of this sonofabitching, uh, Domestic Council?"

"I mean one on marijuana that just tears the ass out of them."

"We are going to hit the marijuana thing, and I want to hit it right square in the puss, I want to find a way of putting more on that."

"I want to hit it, against legalizing and all that sort of thing."

The day before the Commission released its final report, Nixon said:

"We need, and I use the word 'all out war', on all fronts... We have to attack on all fronts."

Knowledgeable government professionals were not allowed to provide input. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare wasn't to be consulted:

"Don't go to HEW. Well, we might, we might have big problems with HEW too."

Input by the National Institutes of Health was forbidden:

"Did you see this statement by Brown... this morning? Uh, he should be out. I mean, today, today. If he's a presidential appointee all I do is fire the son- of-a-bitch, and I mean today."

No wonder Barry Goldwater was quoted as saying:

"I wouldn't trust Nixon from here to that phone."

In March of 1972, to his great credit, Shafer bucked the President and delivered an honest report, with conclusions based on all the evidence. The commission concluded that marijuana's relative potential for causing harm does not justify punishment for users and recommended decriminalization of possession and use of small quantities of marijuana.

A Zogby poll taken shortly after found that 61 percent of voters nationwide agreed with Shafer Commission conclusions that marijuana users should not be arrested or jailed. Only 33 percent supported treating marijuana users as criminals.

Nixon refused to read the report before denouncing its findings. Raymond Shafer was eliminated from the list of those being considered for appointment as federal judges.

Echoing the words spoken the day before the final report was issued, Nixon declared the nation to be engaged in a "War on Drugs". In June 1971, when polls indicated the populace considered heroin a prime problem as the result of a massive publicity campaign orchestrated by the White House, Nixon sent a message to Congress declaring:

"America's Public Enemy Number One is drug abuse."

"...present efforts to control drug abuse are not sufficient... The problem has assumed the dimensions of a national emergency. I intend to take every step necessary to deal with this emergency."

In remarks to media executives the next day, Nixon claimed:

"Drug traffic is public enemy number one domestically in the United States today and we must wage a total offensive, worldwide, nationwide, government-wide, and, if I might say so, media-wide."

The war was on.

Why? Because "Every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish."

And because "... radical demonstrators that were here the last, oh, two weeks ago. They're all on drugs..."

Insane reasons for an insane war. The time for government to recognize it has lost yet another war and to surrender is long past.

Chuck Simpson

John McCain's Agent Orange Issue

During an April 6th speech to students of the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam in the capitol city of Hanoi, Senator John McCain acknowledged:

"US wartime use of the defoliant Agent Orange in Vietnam remains an issue between the two countries."

This astoundingly casual statement should arouse curiosity: What are the current facts on the ground that would cause wartime aerial spraying of Agent Orange, which ended 38 years ago, to remain an "issue"? And why didn't Senator McCain pledge to use his power as a United States senator to help resolve this issue in some reasonably equitable manner?

During what the Vietnamese refer to as the American War, local hearts and minds were "won" by American military forces through aerial spraying of herbicides that were identified by the color of 4-inch bands painted around their 55-gallon drums. Agent Orange has by far received the most attention, but five other herbicides also were used.

Agent Blue contained cacodylic acid, an arsenic compound, and was sprayed at the behest of a South Vietnamese president who thought poisoning his own people was a good thing because they were his enemies. The American military obliged the President by intentionally spraying the people America was supposed to be defending from evil Communists. Over a period of nine years, about 1.2 million gallons of Agent Blue were sprayed on rice paddies in an attempt to starve and poison South Vietnamese civilians.

Agent White was a 4:1 mix of 2,4-D and Picloram. Agent White was contaminated with hexachlorobenzene and nitrosamines, both known carcinogens.

Agent Pink was used during early stages of Operation Ranch Hand, before 1964. The only active compound was 2,4,5-T, which was contaminated with dioxin, at that time the most toxic man-made substance known to mankind.

Agent Purple consisted of a combination of the herbicides 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. Agent Purple is alleged to have contained 45 parts per million dioxin and was only used between 1962 and 1964.

Agent Green was also used only during that period. Agent Green's only active ingredient was 2,4,5-T, presumably with similar dioxin contamination levels.

All six herbicides were defoliants, used to destroy food crops and to clear jungles, mangrove swamps and forests of foliage, the better to see while dropping bombs on defenseless villages from planes flying safely at six-mile altitudes.

For years the Pentagon admitted that, during 9-plus years of Operation Ranch Hand, about 19.4 million gallons of Agents Blue, Orange, White, Pink, Purple and Green were sprayed on slightly over 30,000 square miles, about 24 percent of South Vietnam.

In 2006 scientists at Columbia University discovered documents that indicate over 2 million gallons of herbicides were sprayed between 1962 and 1965 that were not included in totals provided by the Pentagon and relied upon in earlier studies.

Based on detailed analysis of flight records and available population data, the 2006 Columbia study estimated that 20,585 towns and villages were within spraying regions. As many as 4.8 million civilians could have been present in those towns and villages while spraying operations were conducted.

The mightiest and most powerful and fearsome military force ever assembled by mankind made war against millions of unarmed and defenseless civilians, predominantly women, their children and the elderly, in the country they were supposedly protecting and supporting.

Agent Orange was by far the most widely used defoliant. During that nine-plus year period, approximately 11.7 million gallons of Agent Orange, a 50-50 mix of the herbicides 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, was sprayed on South Vietnam.

Because of time and money-saving shortcuts that resulted in insufficient heating during manufacture, the 2,4,5-T was contaminated with 2,3,7,9-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, or simply dioxin.

The dangers of Agent Orange became known in 1952, nine years prior to the onset of use in Vietnam, when Monsanto Chemical warned the Army that 2,4,5-T was "contaminated by a toxic substance". This was confirmed in 1965 through a study of involuntarily exposed and uninformed inmates at Holmesburg state prison in Philadelphia. The progress of their resulting cancers was monitored and studied but no treatment was offered or provided.

The Holmesburg report and subsequent confirming reports all were hidden. Millions of Vietnamese and a quarter-million American soldiers were exposed. As in the 1991 Gulf War, Pentagon brass used chemical weapons of mass destruction on civilians in violation of Geneva Convention rules of warfare, prevented all independent efforts to study their horrific effects and refused to acknowledge existence of overwhelming evidence of those horrific effects.

For over 50 years the Pentagon has evaded the truth and deceived the public by claiming Agent Orange was harmless.

EPA has a slightly different outlook.

Pursuant to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA established a maximum contaminant level goal of dioxin in drinking water of zero. The maximum contamination level allowed is 0.00003 parts per billion.

For many years the Pentagon claimed an Agent Orange dioxin contamination level of three parts per million. Independent testing has established average contamination levels of about 13 parts per million. That is 425 million times the concentration allowed in American drinking water.

Granted, very few if any people actually drank Agent Orange. But, conservatively assuming 2,500 drops per pint, one drop of Agent Orange accidentally ingested would result in the intake of the same amount of dioxin as would be contained in 21,250 gallons of drinking water which meets federal standards. A person would ingest the same amount of dioxin in one drop of Agent Orange as he would ingest by drinking 2 quarts of conforming drinking water daily for over 116 years.

These comparisons illuminate the very real possibility that substantial numbers of Vietnamese villagers might well have suffered from Agent Orange poisoning.

Soil contamination examples are similar. One example: Over 30 years after spraying ended, soil at the Bien Hoa former military base had dioxin contamination at 180 million times EPA's maximum safe level.

Today, at least one million and perhaps as many as three million Vietnamese suffer serious health problems as a result of countrywide spraying of Agent Orange. That number includes about 150,000 with serious birth defects, including spina bifida, severe retardation, blindness, tumors and grotesquely deformed or missing limbs. For the caretaking parents of these children, the war never ended. For these children the war never will end.

In the village of Cam Nghia for example, one child in every ten is born with serious defects. That ratio understates the problem because about 30 percent of village pregnancies terminate by miscarriage or stillbirth.

The war was allegedly fought to prevent Vietnam from "going Communist". On April 30, 1975, over two years after the last American fighting forces were removed from the country, the last remaining Americans were evacuated from the roof of their embassy by helicopter as masses of North Vietnamese troops entered the northern sections of Saigon.

Without an American presence, a unified Vietnam rebuilt their war-devestated country. The American government called this an act of an evil communist society. The Vietnamese called this a demonstration of solidarity, with everyone unselfishly helping everybody else. A unified Vietnam transitioned with a communist-style government for 11 years. Left to their own devices without American interference or influence, Vietnam then freely chose to move to a western-style free-market economy in 1986.

Since 1986, while the American economy has remained stagnant for all but the richest, the Vietnamese economy has grown dramatically. For several years they recorded 20 percent annual growth rates for the export of goods produced by local companies listed on the booming Vietnam National Stock Exchange. Vietnamese investors own stocks of businesses in one of the fastest growing economies in the world.

Unfettered free market capitalism. Some Americans recognize the sickening irony of the Vietnamese people of their own volition and without American influence doing exactly what America tried to force down Vietnamese throats, via support of what was at the time widely recognized as being the most corrupt government on the face of the earth.

Today, American companies like VISA and American Express sponsor floats in the annual parade celebrating victory over American forces in Saigon, now called Ho Chi Minh City. That parade passes down Hong Thap Tu, past the site of the former American Embassy, which was razed over ten years ago.

Being American-style capitalists, the Vietnamese people attempted a capitalist solution to obtain redress for damages caused by America's illegal use of Agent Orange. In January, 2004 the Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange filed suit in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York against Monsanto, Dow Chemical and eight other manufacturers of Agent Orange.

The suit was dismissed early in 2005. The judge ruled that plaintiffs had failed to show that any domestic or international law had been violated. In March of this year, the Supreme Court refused to hear plaintiff's appeal.

The primary hurdle that faced the plaintiffs was lack of internationally accepted studies that establish a link between exposure to Agent Orange and birth defects, cancer and a host of other serious illnesses. That's because no definitive studies have been made by the Pentagon, because positive findings would support claims filed by tens of thousands of American soldiers. Instead, the Pentagon for almost 40 years has steadfastly denied any and all responsibility for the harm they intentionally caused:

"Dioxin contamination... is harmless and causes no serious health problems or serious birth defects."

The Pentagon has also steadfastly refused to acknowledge harm caused to a quarter-million American soldiers who were exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam.

In 1991, Congress authorized financial assistance to these wounded veterans. The Pentagon and the Veterans Administration responded by calling the link between Agent Orange and health problems "presumptive" and refused to pay legitimate claims. Only 1,800 claims, for 0.72 percent of the number of veterans who came into contact with Agent Orange filed have been approved for payment of compensation to American vets for the adverse effects caused by exposure to Agent Orange. To this day the American government is financially able but morally unwilling to fairly and honestly accept responsibility and compensate and support its patriotic wounded and disabled veterans for the damage the Pentagon knowingly and willfully caused.

The Pentagon refused to perform the necessary studies and prevented others from doing them. And war-ravaged Vietnam had no funds to do studies. Partially because in 1975 America vindictively imposed a Cuban-style economic boycott on a unified Vietnam as punishment for winning the war. American efforts concentrated on oppression and continuation of suffering.

One example: India attempted to provide 100 water buffalo, to replace a small part of the buffalo population deliberately killed during the war by American soldiers. America objected and threatened to cancel Food for Peace aid. The trade embargo was finally ended in 1994, 19 years after America lost the war. Diplomatic relations were established in 1995.

Legally established liability or no, America has, for the past 20 years, graciously provided funding for disabled Vietnamese citizens.

During that twenty year period, America has provided 46 million dollars.

Assume this money was used only to support the estimated 150,000 Vietnamese born with birth defects. The financial assistance so graciously provided by America would result in a monthly benefit of 1.28 cents per child.

One point two-eight cents per month per child.

Fifteen cents per year per deformed child for damage America illegally and intentionally inflicted on defenseless women in violation of Geneva Convention rules.

For lifelong damage intentionally inflicted upon the innocent children of the people America was supposed to be supporting.

Senator McCain, the accompanying photos depict but three examples of the "issue" you so casually referenced in your speech.

Senator McCain, I say stop trying to count the number of houses your wife owns long enough to open your eyes and see what you condone by refusing to use your senatorial powers to assist these innocent children.

Refusing to do anything at all.

Look and consider: One point two-eight cents per month.

The fact that you, as a United States Senator with power of leadership that could bring about partial atonement for this terrible injustice committed against innocent children, casually tossed this comment out without hanging your head in shame conclusively establishes that you don't have the moral authority to serve as the Hooterville assistant street sweeper, let alone as a President of the United States.

Or as a senator.

Chuck Simpson

Happy Birthday Mary

November 9. As America celebrates an astounding electoral exhibit of possibilities for true progress, a fitting time to celebrate the 72nd birthday of an American who's fought for social justice for over 45 years. A woman who fought for civil rights in the 1960s. The fight that made Tuesday's victory possible. For over 45 years, she's fought for justice in all its forms the world over, in the process proving that one individual, or three, really can make a difference.

Through folk music. With messages of love and hope and defiance. As she explained:

"It's not about politics, it's about humanity, it's about humanity, it's about finding a way to live".

"We came from the folk tradition in a contemporary form where there was a concern that idealism be a part of your music and the music a part of your life ... the music becomes an extension of your caring and your soul--there's no schism between what you can do on stage and who you are. What we're trying for is a kind of health--and that's what we were always trying for."

For over 45 years, she and her partners haven't merely sung the songs. They've lived the songs. As she explained:

"The songs tell you, 'If you're going to sing me, you have to live me, too."'

Mary Allin Travers, born in 1936 of two politically active newspaper reporters in Louisville, Kentucky. Soon after, the family moved to Greenwich Village in New York City, where Mary became musically active. She was first recorded at age 17 as a member of Song Swappers, a folk group that sang background for Pete Seeger. While in high school she twice sang with the group at Carnegie Hall. Although she never planned on becoming famous:

"I had never wanted to be famous. It never occurred to me. It never occurred to me that I was going to be a singer. I sang as a hobby, something I did for fun."

After high school, Mary worked at a clothing boutique, at day jobs in advertising and waited tables at Cafe Wha? while living in a third-floor walk-up apartment in the Village. Mary didn't live for money, so she could accumulate expensive but worthless possessions. Mary lived for music - her path to personal creativity and discovery. Mary spent Sundays at Washington Square, singing with friends in a series of impromptu groups.

In 1961 Mary connected with Noel Paul Stookey and Peter Yarrow. Peter Paul and Mary premiered at the Bitter End coffeehouse. After rehearsing for seven months, the group was signed by Warner Brothers and released their first album in March, 1962, accompanied by a single, Lemon Tree.

Their second single was released that fall. Pete Seeger's If I Had a Hammer was a hit, resulting in the trio being awarded two Grammy Awards. That song, which later became almost an anthem of America's Civil Rights Movement, was the trio's hopeful shout for freedom and Mary's expression of overflowing vibrant energy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UKvpONl3No

Bob Dylan's Blowin' in the Wind became an instant hit after being released by the trio in June 1963. In August they performed the song to a quarter-million people in Washington as part of the assembly where Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his I Have a Dream speech from the Lincoln Memorial.

The following year the trio became involved with the anti-war protest movement and worked for Eugene McCarthy's presidential campaign - a beginning of their many years of protest against the war in Vietnam.

Peter Paul and Mary quickly became famous. They used their fame to increase their level of protest, and broadened their activities to protest social injustice worldwide, in all its forms.

In the spring of 1965 Mary, with her mother, rejoined Martin Luther King, marching from Montgomery to Selma, in the process singing If I Had a Hammer under threat of violence. Two generations of protesters. Years later that number expanded to three, when Mary, her mother and her daughter all were arrested at an anti-apartheid protest. Mary referred to this as an example of "bridging the generation gap".

Later in 1965 the trio introduced Canadian Gordon Lightfoot to the United States, including in their See What Tomorrow Brings album his Early Morning Rain. In my opinion one of the most hauntingly beautiful songs ever performed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPnLK1WnXxg&feature=related

Mary sang with a voice that was sometimes subdued but always powerful. Powerful to the extent that, for many years, she leaned forward and sang to Peter's and Paul's microphones. Two years later they did America another great favor - by introducing John Denver to the country, with their rendition of his Leaving on a Jet Plane.

In 1969 Peter helped organize the March on Washington, where Peter Paul and Mary sang Give Peace a Chance and Blowin' in the Wind at the National Mall.

Mary participated in missions to Nicaragua during Reagan's wars for his version of "freedom and democracy", and to El Salvador, with her daughter, a former Vista volunteer. In 1983 Mary visited the Soviet Union in support of Russian Jews. In 1985 she accompanied exiled South Korean leader Kim Dae Jung back to his country. In 1985 Yarrow wrote Light One Candle for the trio. Proceeds went to the Sanctuary Movement and self-determination effort in Central America. In 1986 the trio issued No Easy Walk to Freedom in support of the anti-apartheid movement and were honored by the Free South Africa Movement benefit held at Washington's Kennedy Center. The album cover features a photo of the three being arrested for protesting apartheid.

Over the years, Peter Paul and Mary have actively supported a wide range of worthwhile causes, including the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, Children's Defense Fund, Greenpeace, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, the Beth Israel Institute for Neurosurgery, Live Aid, One World, Public Broadcasting Service, World Hunger Year, Human Rights Watch, Second Harvest, the NAACP, the National Coalition for the Homeless, United Farm Workers Union, United Nations Children's Fund, Bread and Roses, Farm Aid, Project Momentum, Easter Seals and Crop Walk. Throughout those years, the trio performed Bob Dylan's Blowin' in the Wind, with its phrase:

"How many years can a people exist, before they’re allowed to be free..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8U6Oh9uSY8

As Mary explained:

"When you sing that line in a prison yard for political prisoners in El Salvador; if you have sung it to a group of union organizers – who have all been in jail – in South Korea; if you’ve sung to Jews in the Soviet Union who have been refused exit visas; if you’ve sung it with Bishop Tutu protesting apartheid, the song breathes. It lives, it has a contemporary currency."

In 1997 the trio joined with the federal Department of Agriculture in an effort to fight hunger in America. In 1998 they performed at a benefit in support of United Farm Workers in California. On March 19, the 30th anniversary of the benefit they performed for Cesar Chavez at Carnegie Hall.

In 1999 the trio recorded Songs of Conscience and Concern, sold in a jacket with an explanation of the trio's choice of venue:

"Folk music springs from the lives of people, telling of their hard times and triumphs, their heroes and outlaws, their loves and loves lost. It not only tells the story of how we got here, but reveals the bond we share with past generations. They, too, had hopes and dreams similar to our own. They, too, sought to heal the world in their own time, ridding it of war and injustice--and they, too, were nurtured by the songs that bound their mutual vision, that helped to renew them in the wake of loss and disappointment."

"Let the music tell its story and perhaps you, too, will be moved to join your voice with others who are committed to the realization of a better world."

A portion of the proceeds were donated to the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Children's Defense Fund and Oxfam, which fights global hunger.

Throughout, Mary found time for a wide variety of interests, all in furtherance of her long battle against all forms of social injustice. She recorded solo albums and toured, hosted a syndicated radio show, wrote newspaper columns and created the BBC series Rhymes and Reasons, which dealt with social traditions and changes.

In the fall of 2004 tragedy struck, and Mary began yet another battle. She was diagnosed with leukemia. After five weeks of chemotherapy, doctors told Mary:

"You were supposed to go into remission, and you haven't."

In April 2005 Mary received a bone marrow transplant, from a Republican named Mary. The transplant was successful. One month later, Mary was discharged from her hospital.

Seven months later Mary used a cane to limp onto the stage and join Peter and Paul to perform with the New York Choral Society at Carnegie Hall.

Through the years Mary has offered words of advice and encouragement that are pertinent today more than ever:

"Pessimism is a self-fulfilling prophesy, and apathy is one of the greatest dangers."

"All of us are subject to being passive to the social ills around us. It’s a struggle not to become, by staying silent, an accomplice."

"It’s important for young people to perceive that there are acceptable avenues of dissent, because we live in a world where dissent is hard-pressed; treated as if it were unpatriotic."

"We’ve learned that it will take more than one generation to bring about change. The fight for civil rights has developed into a broader concern for human rights, and that encompasses a great many people and countries. Those of us who live in a democracy have a responsibility to be the voice for those whose voices are stilled."

As Mary Travers notes of the trio:

"We've always been involved with issues that deal with the fundamental human rights of people, whether that means the right to political freedom or the right to breathe air that's clean."

Mary's health problems have continued After her transplant she suffered knee problems, and underwent two surgeries on her back in 2007.

The last few years have been physically hard on Mary, and that shows. But her voice and her spirit remain strong. Physically, Mary has aged. Spiritually, she has not. Mary continues to fight on for a better world for all of us.

Even at age 72, Mary remains a fighter. Peter Paul and Mary performed in Hartford, Connecticut on September 28th. Mary was wheeled onto the stage with a supply of bottled oxygen nearby. And she performed. Magnificently. As Paul said after:

"Mary's ballad voice has never been more beautiful."

On November 4, the trio announced Mary has a lung infection. The remainder of the fall concert tour was rescheduled to 2009.

Not canceled. Rescheduled. As Mary said:

"It's my job to continue to try."

As for the future, at age 72:

"We have no plans to retire".

Many Americans talk the talk. For over 45 years, Mary Travers has walked the walk - in the finest example of a true American patriot who has always been willing to stand up and be counted in the ways that make America a great nation. Mary Travers truly has made a positive difference in the world.

Please show your love for Mary and your appreciation of her work by sending her a belated Happy Birthday and Get Well Soon message at:

http://www.marytravers.com/guestbook/gbook.php

She reads every message she receives. Please include a giant Thank You Mary. For over 45 years Mary Travers has been our trailblazer, acting for all of us who understand what America is and what America stands for, working to make a better, more just world, through her music.

All of us owe Mary a debt we can never repay. We can only say:

Thank you Mary, and Bless You and Keep You.

Chuck Simpson

The National Marrow Donor Program:

http://www.marrow.org/

CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS - THE INSANE PROBLEM AND THE RADICAL BUT SANE SOLUTION

The paramount reason for today's cancerous credit crisis is seldom even hinted and never explained.

First, a simple definition. A credit default swap is a form of insurance. A variant of mortgage insurance required of many home purchasers. An insurance policy that requires a company with financial strength to step up to the plate and pay the mortgage if for some reason the home buyer defaults.

A credit default swap is similar: If default occurs, an insurance company pays the income stream of the mortgage.

With one extremely important difference: Payments are made to the owner of the policy, not to the financial institution that stands to suffer a loss.

Financial institutions are allowed, through total lack of regulation, to buy and sell credit default swaps, or insurance they will be paid in event of default, on financial instruments in which they have no financial interest.

Start with a simple example. Assume I know the young son of the couple next door likes to crawl into closets and play with matches. I therefore see a reasonably good shot at "winning the disaster lottery" so to speak, by buying fire insurance on their $200,000 house.

In simple terms, I now have a financial interest is seeing that disaster occurs. If the house, for whatever mysterious reason, burns down an insurance company will pay me the insured value of the house - even though I suffered no loss, financial or otherwise. My neighbor's misfortune is thus magically transformed into my good fortune. A polite way of saying I was paid $200,000, the insured value of my next-door neighbor's house, after I paid the $400 insurance premium.

Being bright and suitably equipped with an MBA from a prestigious eastern university, I well and fully understand the desirable objective of maximizing my return on investment. I can accomplish this in one or both of two ways - increasing the return or decreasing the investment.

I can increase the return by artificially increasing the value of the house - say from $200,000 to $400,000. This will allow me to collect twice as much for suffering no personal loss. The easiest way to accomplish this would be to hire one of my buddies, who happens to be a real estate appraiser, to "document" the higher value.

I could also decrease my investment - meaning the premium I paid for the insurance, say from $400 to $200. The easiest way to do this would be to hire a widely acclaimed "fire risk rating agency" to send out an inspector who will look around (or perhaps only drive by without stopping) and then solemnly declare: "This house is fireproof".

Poors and Standard Fire Rating Company and Doomys Fire Rating Agency would be excellent choices, based on their prior experience.

In the real world, meaning Main Street as opposed to Wall Street, this would be illegal. Against the public interest, because it encourages houses to mysteriously burn down. The insurance policies owned by people without a financial stake in the fire would be declared null and void because they are contrary to public policy, which sees minimizing the number of mysterious house fires as a good thing.

Rather than a bad thing, as now occurs under America's predatory capitalist system.

Now change an assumption. Assume I tell 99 of my poker-playing gambler friends about the boy's strange and dangerous interest. Starting with my appraiser buddy, who's predatory income as a result of a mysterious fire will double, as a direct result of his appraisal.

Now assume the $400,000 house burns to the ground. One hundred or so insurance companies will collectively pay $40 million in claims on the loss of a single $400,000 house. The benefits of a $400,000 disaster are magically multiplied by a factor of 100 and transformed into a $40 million disaster - with one family suffering a loss and 100 families experiencing a gain. The losses of the insurance companies don't count, because, in America's capitalist society, they are in the business of writing insurance - and paying claims for losses.

But in today's society, fire is not the only disaster that can be insured against. Of particular interest, default on a home mortgage can be insured against. And possession of an interest in the mortgage or actual risk of financial loss as a result of default is not required in order to purchase the insurance.

In this case also, I can increase my return with an inflated appraisal and decrease my investment by declaring the risk to be minuscule - meaning rated AAA by widely acclaimed rating agencies.

We can now change another assumption. Assume the playing with matches problem is removed and a new problem is substituted. A problem like the husband and wife both having low-paying jobs and no health insurance, coupled with knowledge that many employers refuse to accept illness as a legitimate reason for missing work and have iron-clad policies that require ill workers be fired for failing to report to work.

Or assume both husband and wife have no seniority and work at jobs that may not exist tomorrow because they were shipped overseas last night.

If I knew one or both of them were developing health problems or that one or both were at risk of being laid off, I would see a reasonably good shot at "winning the disaster lottery" so to speak, by buying mortgage default insurance, also known as a credit default swap, on their $400,000 house.

Then I could sit back, relax and wait for the hoped-for and expected misfortune, which will be my good fortune. As could 99 of my gambling buddies.

Back to the neighbor's home that mysteriously burned to the ground. This tragic event is a great deal for me and my 99 gambling buddies. Our biggest risk is that, having paid the insurance premiums, the home stubbornly refuses to burn to the ground.

Being capitalists, we desire to increase the odds that a disastrous fire will occur. My friends and I with fire insurance policies on my neighbor's house have two options for increasing the odds. One, teach the young child the joys and wonders of paying with matches in closets. Two, hire a professional arsonist.

Holders of credit default swaps have similar but more numerous and less risky opportunities to increase their odds of "winning the disaster lottery".

The best way would be use of fine-print, non-understandable escalator clauses that increase the hard-working couple's monthly payments by a factor of two or three. With rampant inflation, confined to core goods that officially "don't count" in Washington, such as $4.00 gasoline, $5.00 milk and $3.00 bread. With rampant if covert support of immigrant labor, legal or otherwise, who are willing to work for less, without any benefits at all, let alone health insurance, thereby increasing the risk of job loss.

We could destroy OSHA, making on-the-job causes of illness and injury more likely. We could buy legislation that benefits pharmaceutical companies while making both medicine and health insurance unaffordable. We could destroy the economy of Main Street, making job loss more likely. The list is extensive, collectively making early default all but inevitable.

That issue addressed, our biggest worry becomes the solvency of the insurance companies. That problem can best be solved by requiring substitution of a "bigger and better" insurance company with deeper pockets.

Purchasing legislation and regulations (or the lack thereof) is the preferred method.

Roughly a quarter-century ago, when I was owner of a new and small consulting engineering firm in a Midwestern state, a law was passed requiring that operators of coal strip mines reclaim the messes they made. To ensure this might actually happen, the new law required coal mine operators to post reclamation performance bonds, payable to the state. So if the operators went bankrupt, the state could call the bonds, thereby obtaining funds for the state to hire and pay remediation contractors.

I never understood at the time why the small independent strip mine operators had so little interest in hiring a consulting engineer to design mining and reclamation operations so as to minimize reclamation expense, or even to provide honest estimates of expected reclamation expenses. Until, in an unguarded moment, one small operator explained Plan B.

At the time, only $250,000 in financial assets were required for formation of an insurance company, and once formed, no limits were placed on the value of insurance written. Same for performance bonds written to the government that granted the license and regulated.

As chance would have it, a dozen or so small mine operators joined together and kicked in about $20,000 each, thereby building a kitty of $250,000. They solicited a straw man and formed their very own little insurance company. That company specialized in writing strip mine reclamation bonds, with the state as an insured party. The amounts of the bonds were based on remediation cost estimates that were provided by the operators who paid for the bonds. This insurance company was issued a license even though the owners never at any time had any intention whatsoever of paying claims they knew would be filed.

Mining operations continued as before. Meaning horrendous messes were left behind. When the meses were discovered, ABC mining companies declared bankruptcy. Corporate assets, usually consisting only of a worn-out backhoe and a dilapidated dump truck, were liquidated for each of the companies. DEF mining companies with different well-used backhoes and dump trucks were formed to exploit the next sites.

As to ABC's sites: The state called upon the insurance company's performance bonds so the state could clean up the messes. And the state did.

Reclamation work "estimated" by the mine operators to cost about $6 million was performed, at a cost of about $70 million. All but about $250,000 was paid for by the taxpayers, after the insurance company filed bankruptcy.

Substituting A.I.G. and similar institutions for the name of the miner's small insurance company will explain much of America's current situation.

As with reclamation of strip mines, the insurance companies will file for bankruptcy. Government, via a $700 billion emergency rescue plan, will step up to the plate. The costs will be paid by taxpayers who have seen only losses and no gains. Pursuant to a rescue plan that prohibits any and all forms of congressional or judicial oversight or opportunity to object.

Except for reports, to be filed twice yearly. Something akin to the fox being required to periodically report how many chickens he stole from the hen house, without being required to return any of the stolen chickens. And who will keep this count? The fox.

The inevitable bankruptcy of A.I.G? What other option exists for a company with a market value of $12 billion and liabilities of about $450 billion on credit default swaps written to hedge funds, many of which are headquartered offshore and thus pay no taxes in the United States. For this, the government is paying $85 billion in taxpayer's money. In return, the government, meaning the taxpayers, will be entitled to receive 80 percent of the company's stock. Stock that is all but assured to be totally worthless.

For insurance company executives, financial risks of corporate bankruptcy are all but non-existent. Lehman Brothers is a prime example. On September 15, Lehman filed bankruptcy - the biggest in America's history. Hours before, the New York headquarters was scrambling for cash. Other banks were refusing to provide loans to Lehman. Banks with loans outstanding were demanding immediate repayment. Counter parties to Lehman's credit default swaps were selling out at ten cents on the dollar.

Lehman's response: Hours before the bankruptcy filing, Lehman transferred $2.5 billion from the London office to the American holding company. This money had "accrued as part of group profits from the first nine months of the year" and will be used to pay employee bonuses. As a result, the London office had no funds with which to make the payroll.

Presumably. part of that money will be used to pay a bonus to Lehman CEO Richard Fuld, Jr. Last year he made $71 million. In better times, namely 2006, he was the fifth-highest paid CEO in America. His total compensation was $122.67 million.

Working American taxpayers rightly question whether firms such as this, managed by people such as this, should be bailed out. And question if the bailout will be administered fairly.

Just cause exists for questioning. Should taxpayers be concerned (or outraged) that the fox who wrote the emergency plan and will be responsible for guarding government's $700 billion hen house is Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson?

Paulson, who amassed a fortune estimated to total $700 million during his 32-year career at Goldman Sachs, the main competitor of Lehman?

Paulson, who will be allowed to purchase worthless securities from Goldman Sachs and offshore hedge funds at prices that he alone will determine but probably not disclose, without being subject to congressional or judicial oversight of any sort?

Paulson, who refused to even consider bipartisan calls for tighter regulation or reform after sending his emergency proposal to Congress at 1:30 A. M. last Saturday?

Paulson, whose previous employer Goldman Sachs was granted a request to convert to a bank holding company with full access to the Federal Reserve's emergency loan program by his buddy Bernanke?

Paulson, who failed and sometimes refused to regulate and now claims changes to his proposal aren't possible because of an emergency that resulted from his failure or refusal to regulate?

Paulson, who last Sunday rejected suggestions that his taxpayer-funded program be revised to provide any sort of relief for homeowners facing foreclosure?

Paulson, who steadfastly refuses to consider taking a hard look at A.I.G. and other financial firms. How could these companies, managed by the so-called "best and brightest" guys in the room, have committed such a long and horrendous series of "poor judgments"?

By accident, or sheer incompetence?

Hard to believe, given that everyone in the room knew millions of explosive mortgages were being written to families without sufficient income, or in some cases no documentation of any income at all, based on fraudulent appraisals and supported by fraudulent AAA ratings.

Given the size and blatant nature of the disaster, accident and incompetence excuses simply don't fly. Something more was involved. That something is the number and size of vultures who bet on and stand to gain from the disaster, and how much they stand to gain. Too many people owning fire insurance on my neighbor's valuable house.

In my house fire insurance example, the insurance companies that wrote the polices risk going broke, due to an unprecedented number of mysterious house fires, each resulting in an unprecedented number of claims.

The proposed bailout asks for $700 billion. The number of homes through, in the process of or facing foreclosure is currently about five million. Meaning the cost will be about $140,000 per home.

But the problem as to credit default swaps is much bigger. The notional value of credit default swaps outstanding is estimated to be about $62 trillion.

This is about $12.4 million per home. About 31 times the value of a $400,000 home.

No wonder America is experiencing an emergency of mysterious financial house fires. And who will benefit? Those who taught and then encouraged the boy to play with matches.

The Sane Solution

Our leaders warn of dire consequences: If the $700 billion bailout bill is not passed immediately, without debate, let alone modification, economic growth will "suffer".

But America has already experienced years of economic growth. And suffering. The parasitic, predatory type of growth I've described has already resulted in many years of much suffering on Main Street.

More suffering? The honest, hardworking people of Main Street USA who would never dream of attempting to make a profit on someone else's disaster deserve to see much more than suffering. They deserve to see death. Of all the financial institutions that sought to get rich on the backs of hardships suffered by or intentionally inflicted on others.

This is not the type of economic growth that should be saved. This is the type of growth that should be killed in its tracks, as dead as possible, the quicker the better.

One excellent first step would be rejection of the $700 billion burden to be placed on the backs of taxpayers.

An excellent second step would be judicial declaration that the value of any and all credit default swaps is zero, as being against public policy that requires that activities than encourage mysterious fires or other forms of disaster are illegal as contrary to public policy.

Yes, you heard me right. Judicial determination that all $62 trillion worth of credit default swaps are null, void and totally worthless.

Only then can a just and humane financial system can be constructed upon the ashes of the old.

This process could and should be facilitated by all honest citizens withdrawing all their funds from all financial institutions, notably including bank checking and savings accounts and money market funds, but possibly excluding local credit unions that loan in and support the local community. I urge all American citizens to do this, as quickly as possible, to the maximum extent possible. If for no other reason, then for self-defense. All must realize no bank is safe and FDIC is one major collapse from insolvency.

The intended result: The quick death of the financial system that has sentenced all of us to a slow death.

All citizens should consider and choose: Will they be among those meekly walking to the cattle cars because of vague promises of a better life, or among those who stood up so bravely in Warsaw.

Chuck Simpson

Please disseminate as widely as possible, including to all members of Congress. Preferably starting with Ron Paul.