FEEDBACK

Feedback on Video: " Father Abraham" by Rob Katz - 4/24/10

Steve,
It’s a beautiful song, but misses a couple of points.
1. Twenty plus Arab countries.  ONE Jewish country.
2. Multiple attempts by the Arab people to destroy the Jewish homeland and keep the entire Middle East Muslim.  Never any attempts by Israel to destroy ANY Arab country.
3. Constant and frequent threats by the Arab people to drive the Jews "into the sea".  Never a threat by the Jewish people to drive any Arab country into the sea or anywhere else.
 4. When the Arabs controlled Jerusalem, Jews were not allowed there, Jewish cemeteries were destroyed, Jews did not have any access to Jewish Holy places under Arab control.  With Israel controlling Jerusalem, Jews, Muslims and Christians all have reasonable access to holy places under Jewish control.
 5. Many deliberate attempts by the Arab people to murder Jewish civilians, including suicide bombers in buses and coffee houses, attacks on buses full of children, etc. etc.  Israel, on the other hand, tries to target only militants and avoid civilian casualties as best it can.  This despite the fact that Arab militants do not hesitate to use their own people as human shields.
 6. Unending Arab demands that Israel accept a "right of return" of Arabs to Israel, which would result in a demographic shift eventually turning Israel into a Muslim dominated country (or an ongoing war zone like Lebanon).  No demands by Israel that Arab countries agree to impossible terms that would threaten their existence.
 7.  A willingness by Israel to give up most of the land she was forced to conquer in 1967, during the Arab attempt to annihilate her in the Six Day War (I was in Israel at the time, on a kibbutz facing the Golan Heights).  No willingness by the Arab countries to give up ANY land to allow Israel a sense of security, even land that they lost in a war of aggression and no longer control.
 8.  A willingness by Israel to make painful compromises, including removing Jewish citizens from places that many Jews believe should rightfully belong to the Jewish people.  No sign of ANY willingness by Arabs to makes any compromises.
 9.  Strong action by Israel against any Jewish fanatic who takes violent action against Arabs.  No action at all by Arab leaders against the many Arab fanatics who try to kill Israelis. 
 Steve, I could go on and on with this list.  It is unfortunate that the political left, which should be Israel's natural ally, has been blinded by Arab propaganda and ends up supporting groups it has nothing in common with (repression of women, brutal suppression of dissent, religious dictatorship, practice of terrorism against civilians, etc.), and criticizes the one democracy in the Middle East, which, however imperfect it may be, at least tries to be fair and democratic despite being in a continual and never ending fight for survival.  This is NOT a struggle between two sides that are equally responsible for it.  When Israel's Arab neighbors become truly willing to accept Israel's existence as a Jewish state (the only such in the entire world) with strong and reasonable borders, then the other details will be worked out, borders and settlements will be negotiated and compromised on, and there will be peace.  Until then, any attempts to push a solution is actually counter productive.
I hope you pass this on to the people on your list. 
LS, El Cerrito Ca

4/28/10
I agree quite strongly with all that LS said. Though the song is beautifully sung, it makes me quite queasy because it all seems to lay equal responsibility for the situation on both Jews and Arabs. As LS very clearly points out, that is hot what has happened.
MM, Berkeley, CA

5/15/10
My response to Rob's song is that we have to take responsibility for making peace.  We can't use the extreme statements or actions of a few as a reason not to act.  We know there are people on both sides who don't want peace, but many more do want it.  And governments must not be allowed to use these excuses to justify systematic oppression of their own people or people in occupied territories.
AM, Berkeley, CA

Feedback on our Video and TV Ad: “Healthcare Reform According to Grandma” – 11/16/09 and 12/8/09

December 11, 2009
Hey Grandma!
Definitely we have to go after the insurance companies, the HMOs, and the "Senior Advantage" Plans --that aren't!
GW

December 9, 2009
I love it! Not only was it informative and educational, it was funny and motivating.
AT

November 19, 2009
Excellent video! If your elected official represents the insurance industry rather than you, don't vote for them again.
DC

November 17, 2009
Being a grandma myself I quite agree – you tell em girl!!!!
PS

Feedback on the Article: The Resurrection of the Republican Party
Printed in the Sacramento Bee as: GOP Strays from Path Set by Past Leaders - 8/21/09

September 12, 2009
(To Max Blumenthal, author of Republican Gomorrah)
Hi Max:
I thought you might appreciate this article that I wrote which appeared in the Sacramento Bee. I'm trying to suggest a possibility that the Republicans still can choose to return to their roots.
Thanks,
Steve Zolno

Thanks, Steve. I think rational Republicans will start a rebuilding process rather than doubling down with the extreme right-wing base. It seems very few are as self-reflective as you seem to be. Stay in touch. Max

August 25, 2009
Steve,
I read your excellent editorial in the Sacramento Bee. Well done! I also looked at your organization’s web page. It is also well written. As an active Republican in SC, I find it difficult to get Party officials to focus on analyzing issues rather than driving wedges between groups.
Sincerely,
CS, Republicans for Environmental Action

Hi CS:
Thank you for your feedback. Was wondering how you discovered the article in the Sacramento Bee. I am somewhat familiar with REP. I have looked it up and read some of your articles and I salute you! My background is in Healthcare in California. As I’m sure you know, our state legislators are busy fighting each other and not too good at figuring out how to pay our bills. For the record, I’m a decline-to-state (which means Independent in California). I have worked with legislators of both parties, most recently Republicans, to try to keep funding going for our most vulnerable citizens while they wrangle over the budget.
Thanks again,
Steve Zolno

August 21, 2009
Dear Steve,
I agree with you fully.  I loved your editorial.  However, your ideas hold no allegiance to party or structure other than open dialog and idea sharing. These are qualities in short supply right now. I knew the Demos were going to have some big time difficulties.  In America, the issue of war is our Achilles heel, in my opinion. I think this core issue and our inability to come to terms with others in this world, is the biggest symptom of our decline. I glanced at your book and I am eager to read it.  So cool!  I wish our beloved governor got to work with you.  Our State would be better.
Peace,
KW, Sacramento

Reply: August 21, 2009
Hi KW -
Great to hear from you! I've been in the health field for many years, working with legislators of both parties as needed in an attempt to get them to work together. For the record, I'm a decline-to-state. The point here is that I don't care what party our leaders are from, only that they work together to serve the people who elected them.  Please check out my book, Taking Responsibility, on our website, when you have a chance.
Take care,
Steve

August 21, 2009
Steve - Glad to see you made it into the SacBee this morning.
Just wondering where you are trying to take your effort?
Sincerely,
DF, Davis, CA

Reply: Sunday, August 23, 2009
Dear DF -
Thanks for reading the article and for your question. I have been in the health care field for 20 year trying to get our legislators to work together so that services to people with severe physical and mental disabilities don't disappear. As I'm sure you know, the budget process in California has become a model for what not to do across the rest of the country. There is also a potential for gridlock in health care reform in Washington as we speak. For the record, I'm a decline-to-state when I vote in California.

I think when we look back at our history, the leaders we honor the most are the visionaries - those who have committed themselves to forging a new path and have had the courage to make it happen. This applies to the American Revolution, slavery, segregation, child labor laws, etc. Those who simply uphold the status quo for its own sake become lost in the dustbin of history. Not that change for its own sake is necessarily good, but change toward what best serves the average individual has been the general thrust of our history. This has not been the domain of any political party, although parties have disbanded who no longer served this purpose.

My thought is that we need - and always have needed - leaders who are willing to seriously move us in this direction. The Democrats sometimes do and sometimes don't, but the Republicans seem committed to obstructing the forward movement of our country recently. Thus the discontent of voters. I would like for as many Republicans as possible to look beyond their pledges of loyalty to their party and have the courage to look at the bigger picture.

I'd love to know your thoughts on this subject, and other areas touched in our website.
Thanks,
Steve Zolno

Feedback on the Article: THE BETRAYAL OF REAGAN’S LEGACY

August 19, 2009
The Betrayal of the Betrayal of Reagan’s Legacy
I beg to differ with your piece on Reagan. In it, you assail the man-for-all-seasons myth we hear from Republicans, but, in the process you embrace an alternate, maybe-he-wasn't-so-bad version of the same myth, increasingly echoed by progressives.  This is not bait we should take.  The Reagan presidency was a disaster.  He may have been our second worst president--and everything he did paved the way for the worst.  Like Bush, he was hostile to labor, hostile to science, hostile to the concept of government as a leveler of economic injustice.  "Government does not solve the problem, government is the problem," was his frequent mantra.

Like Bush, Reagan filled government with individuals whose guiding principle was the undermining of the agencies they were empowered to lead.  Remember James (Sell off the National Parks) Watt?  Remember Donald (Let them wear hats) Hodel?  Remember William (Behead the drug dealers) Bennett?  And I haven't even mentioned Robert Bork, possibly the only Supreme Court nominee in history to admit his discomfort with the First Amendment.

Reagan was no peacemaker.  His tough-with-Russia posture was an emblem of his presidency.  The arms race he championed twice compelled The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to advance the hands the hands of the doomsday clock ever closer to midnight , their way of noting the increasing likelihood of all out nuclear war.   (In fairness, the hands were moved back in 1988 when an arms pact was signed with the Soviet Union.)

 When Reagan took office, the nation was in the throes of Vietnam syndrome.  We had temporarily learned that foreign adventures were more difficult to extract ourselves from than to commence.  There was no appetite to commit troops anywhere, and any president attempting to do so would have encountered overwhelming opposition.  Reagan sought to change this; and to whet the national appetite, to show us that military victories were still possible, he attacked a nation so small (Grenada) that its armed forces would not have been a fair match for the Oakland Police Dept.  This victory was followed by new adventures in Nicaragua , illegally trafficking arms to Iran and diverting the proceeds to the Contras.  Eleven administration officials were sentenced to prison as a result, all pardoned by George H. W. Bush.  (Reagan, himself, was spared for lack of a smoking gun.)

Economically, George W. Bush and Reagan were twins.  Both trashed the economy with unprecedented tax roll backs, creating massive deficits and recessions.  In both cases the damage was probably deliberate.  Reagan hated social spending and in one stroke he not only won the hearts of the anti-taxers, but he created conditions that rendered social spending all but impossible. This model--government pared to the bone, taxation made a verboten concept--may be his most enduring legacy.  (The consequences are being felt in California this minute.)  It is one of the reasons his presidency has been called seminal: he not only stopped social spending in its tracks in his own term, but he so locked this ethic into place it has been impossible for successors to undo his victories.             

Another Reagan innovation, now permanent, was his cracking of the firewall between church and state.  I still remember him telling a national conference of Christians, "You can't endorse me, but I can endorse you."  This outreach was a conscious policy, worthy of any of the Rovian maneuvers to follow.  You might call it a stroke of genius: how do you get people to vote for you when everything you do is to their disadvantage?  (Do all of the town hall shouters have health care?) Of course, once you invite a particular constituency into the tent, they are going to have an effect on the discourse.  So it is not accidental that the new face of the Republican party bears features of the religious right.  Reagan would not be appalled by this.  It was he who kick-started the process.

Reagan is not the antipode of GWB, he is the precursor--the one who made it all possible.  He, more than anyone, created the soil in which a future GWB could thrive.

So what's a progressive to do?  It may seem fair minded to say he had his good points, but the damage he did was profound.  The fact that he can now be held up as an icon is a meaningful indicator of how distorted the dialog has become.  We should not be half-hearted in exposing this irony.  Meeting it head-on is the best way to counter Republican revisionism.
DK, Oakland, CA

Reply, August 21, 2009
Dear DK -
Can't argue with a thing you're saying.
Having read two books on Reagan lately, I know there is more left out than what is included in my article. However, we can beat Reagan as hard as we want and it won't bother him a bit. What's hurting our state and country the most is Reagan pretenders who have taken only a part of his legacy to back up the draconian route they are taking us. If it were only possible to get some of them to take a more moderate path - that is negotiate with others toward a goal that meets the needs of their constituents rather than simply being obstructionist - this effort will have been worthwhile.
Thanks,
Steve

email steve@americanvaluesfocusgroup.org