Uncle Sam Wants You

Why Democrats Deserve To Retain Both Houses Of Congress

2010-09-02T13:23:00.001-05:00

There's a lot of talk these days about the Republicans recapturing the House of Representatives this fall, and even having an outside chance of getting the Senate too. For anyone with a memory, this would be a terrible thing, recalling the nastiness of the Clinton years, when the GOP took Congress in the 1994 midterm election, and the bad policies of the first six years of the George W. Bush administration, when the Republicans controlled Congress (minus a brief period in 2002 when Democrats controlled the Senate).

Let's not have them measure the drapes yet. As Susan Estrich points out, the use of generic polls in making broad predictions isn't a terribly effective method of political prognosticating.

Additionally, the midterm election is far from a done deal this early in the season, for a number of reasons, as one of our favorite sites, Electoral-Vote.com, articulates.

But rather than make predictions, let's look at why giving Republicans control over even one

house of Congress is a bad idea:

Contrary to right-wing dogma and the relentless drone of Republican propaganda, this Democratic Congress has been very effective. Among their accomplishments since Barack Obama became president are health care reform, financial regulation reform, and an economic stimulus that is widely credited with saving the nation from an even worse economic downturn.

Health care reform was a goal of many presidents since at least Teddy Roosevelt nearly 100 years ago. Did the legislation go far

enough? Probably not. Inclusion of a public option or the establishment of a Medicare-for-all plan would have done more to lower costs, but the bill that was passed will go a long way to

correcting a situation that has been out of control for too long and which is simply unsustainable. Getting the bill passed above Republican obstruction - remember that not a single Republican in the House voted for the bill - and industry lobbying - millions were spent to water down the legislation - was no small feat. However much more could have been done in reforming health care, the Democrats in Congress made an historic effort and deserve praise for what they accomplished.

Similarly, financial reform represents another huge milestone, and one that has been badly needed for decades. Deregulation of many of the New Deal-era rules began in earnest during the Reagan years. During that time, the concentration of wealth in the nation shifted to the top, with the wealthiest ten percent of the population getting about a 35% share of all income in 1982 to more than 50% in 2007. At the same time, working people have had to spend down their savings and go into debt to get by. Republicans have pushed deregulation under the guise of "freedom," and now claim that efforts to re-regulate amount to "socialism" - a claim that was made by conservatives during the New Deal period and again during the Great Society era to try to derail efforts to legislate business. Never mind that true socialism isn't reflected in these efforts - if the Republicans can scare people into thinking that "the American way of life" is at stake, they will use any phrase, slogan, or pejorative they can think of.

It's worth pausing a second to consider the complete implausibility of what the Republicans are

really advocating. They've been saying since the Reagan years that business prospers when it isn't hindered by rules, and that this benefits society. Inherent in that idea is that business leaders will act in the best interests of society. As 30 years of evidence shows us, that's either

a naive notion or simply disingenuous. It's not the role of business to act in the public interest, and while we can always hope its leaders will do so, there is no law requiring them to. Rather, it's the role of government to act in the public interest, which sometimes means creating rules we all have to follow to create a fair society. Most people are confident enough to leave their house every day and travel on the roads and highways, with the reasonable assumption that they can get where they are going safely because rules are in place to guide people to drive responsibly. Would they take the chance to venture out if there were no speed limits, stop lights or rights-of-way? Why should the business world be any different? Shouldn't workers and investors be able to have the confidence that there are rules in place that make the most irresponsible excesses of business illegal or, at least, discouraged? Establishment of these long overdue rules is yet another reason the Democrats in Congress should be applauded.

Perhaps the most controversial accomplishment of the last year

and a half is the passage of the economic stimulus bill. Conservatives have worked the nation into a tizzy with hype about the growing deficit. Yes, it is true that the U.S. has a large deficit, and it's also true that Republicans have short memories. It was under Ronald Reagan that the deficit grew wildly and the U.S. went from being the largest creditor nation to largest debtor. It was the George W. Bush administration that made the situation far worse with the tax cuts for the wealthy that were passed by the Republican-controlled Congress.

It was also the Bush administration that took the surplus of the Clinton years and created a massive debt.

But now, Republicans want to talk about the deficit and scare people into thinking that it can only get better if they were in charge - betting against the memory of the people. (When presented with the idea of letting the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010 - as they are scheduled to - Republicans respond by saying that the deficit doesn't matter as much as tax cuts for the wealthy. What they really mean is that they want to complain about the deficit only when it is convenient for them.)

Meanwhile, economic experts have been on record since before the stimulus, saying it needed to be larger. Conservatives succeeded in watering it down by hyperventilating about the deficit, yet none of them voted for it in the long run! (In the Senate, two Republican senators from Maine voted for the measure, along with Sen. Specter who was soon to join the Democrats; in the House, not a single Republican voted for it.) So the Democrats passed legislation that is credited with saving the economy from further ruin against virtually unified opposition.

If that's not enough for you, consider what the Republicans would do if back in control. They've already said they'd hold hearings on everything in the Obama administration they don't like, just like they did in the Clinton years, eventually hounding the president to the brink of impeachment. That's not only a waste of taxpayer money - which they claim to hold so sacred - but a waste of precious time that's needed to fix problems like climate change.

Given the opportunity, they'd also enact policies - tax cuts, deregulation, and the usual suspects - that are demonstrable failures. We already have thirty years of evidence in front of us that show that these policies don't work. It really could not be more clear.

No one can deny that the U.S. is in difficult times. It seems that many of those difficulties - especially those relating to the economy - stem from Republican policies. But in grand political tradition, the Republicans instead vilify the people who have actually made strides of progress - Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama - and blame the nation's problems on the hardest working among us. N.J. Gov. Chris Christie has spent the first eight months of his term holding out teachers, policemen and fire fighters - and their unions - as the gravest threat to our security and well being -- and Christie's become an aspiration to Republicans across the country! Indeed, Republicans in Congress held up much-needed funds for teachers and police just last month; Republican Rep. John Boehner went so far as to call the money "a bailout." If the Democrats wanted to wage a negative campaign, they could do worse than the slogan "Republicans Hurt Working People."

Democrats have been more effective controlling Congress in the last year and a half than almost any other time in decades. But there is still a lot more work to be done - the economy is still in trouble and our deadline on climate change is breathing down our necks, neither of which are problems the Republicans are equipped to handle. The Democrats deserve the chance to do it, without the harmful, obstructive and divisive policies and politics of the Republicans.

Congratulations, President-Elect Obama!

2008-11-05T01:05:00.002-05:00

Well done!

10 Things You Don't Know About John McCain

2008-04-07T14:24:00.004-05:00

The good folks at MoveOn.org have compiled this essential list of things the general public doesn't know about Senator John McCain.

1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws.

Sources: "The Complicated History of John McCain and MLK Day," ABC News, April 3, 2008 ; "McCain Facts," ColorOfChange.org, April 4, 2008

2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."

Sources: "McCain More Hawkish Than Bush on Russia, China, Iraq," Bloomberg News, March 12, 2008 ; "Buchanan: John McCain 'Will Make Cheney Look Like Gandhi,'" ThinkProgress, February 6, 2008

3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.

Source: "McCain Sides With Bush On Torture Again, Supports Veto Of Anti-Waterboarding Bill," ThinkProgress, February 20, 2008

4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."

Source: "McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned," MSNBC, February 18, 2007

5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.

Sources: "2007 Children's Defense Fund Action Council Nonpartisan Congressional Scorecard," February 2008 ; "McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion," CNN, October 3, 2007

6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.

Sources: "Beer Executive Could Be Next First Lady," Associated Press, April 3, 2008 ; "McCain Says Bank Bailout Should End `Systemic Risk,'" Bloomberg News, March 25, 2008

7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

Sources: "Will McCain's Temper Be a Liability?," Associated Press, February 16, 2008 ;
"Famed McCain temper is tamed," Boston Globe, January 27, 2008

8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.

Sources: "Black Claims McCain's Campaign Is Above Lobbyist Influence: 'I Don't Know What The Criticism Is,'" ThinkProgress, April 2, 2008 ;
"McCain's Lobbyist Friends Rally 'Round Their Man," ABC News, January 29, 2008

9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."

Sources: "McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam," Mother Jones Magazine, March 12, 2008 ; "Will McCain Specifically 'Repudiate' Hagee's Anti-Gay Comments?," ThinkProgress, March 12, 2008 ; "McCain 'Very Honored' By Support Of Pastor Preaching 'End-Time Confrontation With Iran,'" ThinkProgress, February 28, 2008

10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.

Source: "John McCain Gets a Zero Rating for His Environmental Record," Sierra Club, February 28, 2008

John McCain is not the person the Washington press corps make him out to be. Please help get the word out—forward this list to your friends.

The Most Dangerous Man In The Game - And The Lamest

2008-01-17T15:32:00.000-05:00

Mike Huckabee has made a splash with evangelical Republican voters, who won the Iowa caucus for him, and many who have seen his speeches and interviews have been impressed with his low-key, calm demeanor. Huckabee's nice-guy persona is certainly a welcome change from George W. Bush's bluster and Mitt Romney's slick brand of corporate phoniness.

Even though Huckabee isn't favored to win the presidency (polls find each of the three Democrats candidates beating him), he is the most dangerous candidate to U.S. freedom and democracy: He wants to change the Constitution to suit his faith. Here is a quote from Huckabee on the campaign trail in Michigan On Monday, Jan. 14:

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

Among all the candidates, only Mitt Romney joins Huckabee in calling for a Constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage, but one gets the sense from Huckabee - who has never been shy about promoting his religious faith - that there is more in the Constitution that he'd like to change (and one also gets the sense that Romney's call for an amendment is just a ploy to get votes). How would the former Baptist preacher and Arkansas governor feel about enacting laws that follow the principle of separation of church and state? It doesn't sound like he'd be vigilant in that regard. As long as he and his supporters keep believing in the fallacy that the U.S. is a "Christian nation," they will continue to feel justified that their religious beliefs should be law.

Forget the fact that it would be extremely hard to change the Constitution, Huckabee's statement in Michigan tells us the kind of executive branch he would run. He'd likely follow Bush's example and forbid funding of stem cell research (in fact, Huckabee is the only GOP candidate who has given an unqualified answer to the question of stem cell research - he doesn't support it), and forbid foreign non-governmental organizations that receive USAID family planning funds from using their own, non-U.S. funds to provide legal abortion services, lobby their own governments for abortion law reform, or even provide accurate medical counseling or referrals regarding abortion. As we've seen with the Bush administration, faith would influence Huckabee's decisions and guide his philosophy. Would he defer to his faith in the face of evidence to the contrary from science or culture? Our experience with the Bush administration doesn't give us confidence that he'd make decisions based on reason. After all, Huckabee doesn't believe in evolution. Would he appoint a secretary of education who did?

Ironically, the same freedom of religion which allows Huckabee and his followers to practice their beliefs as they see fit would be the first victim to a President Huckabee codifying his religion into law. We would then be one nation under his god.

Despite the scary implications, at least Huckabee is a candidate who expresses belief in something - and that may be part of his appeal. It would be hard to find a lamer candidate than Fred Thompson, who appears not to believe in anything and appears ready to take no action as president. Look at Thompsons's positions, such as they are: He wouldn't make any changes to education policy, and says only that he "favors school choice" (a euphemism for taking money away from public schools and giving it to private companies that run private schools). As for dealing with climate change, Thompson says he questions whether global warming caused by humans is real. (Translation: He'll do nothing to halt it.) He's running on a platform of no gun control, so he wouldn't do anything to keep guns from proliferating. At a time when the nation is having a dialogue about changing health care and confronting the crisis around it, Thompson has said he would let "the market, not Washington" handle it. (Translation: he would do nothing.) The war in Iraq? Thompson said he supports Bush's course, so he'd stay with it.

It would be hard to find two worse alternatives in this election than Huckabee and Thompson.

More info: The Christian Nation Myth

Is America a Christian Nation?

Fred Thompson: Too Lazy, Listless And Lame?

The GOP's Cynical Use of Religion

'The Kingdom' Of American Wish Fulfillment

2007-10-09T17:24:00.000-05:00

Movies have long been the place where audiences see their dreams realized. People fall in love, win fortunes, find the perfect job and otherwise triumph over adversity. We know it's not always like that in the real world. But every once in a while, a movie comes along with a fantasy that just isn't healthy, and director Peter Berg's The Kingdom is such a film.

In The Kingdom, a terrorist attack occurs in Saudi Arabia, in a compound where the families of American employees of multi-national corporations live. U.S. intelligence agents make demands, twist arms and otherwise coerce their way into getting permission to enter Saudi Arabia - the kingdom of the film's title - so that they can investigate the crime that took the lives of their friends who were present at the time, despite the very clear instructions from the U.S. attorney general that they stay out of it. Apparently, the rule of law means little to Americans when revenge is at hand.

Once in Saudi Arabia, the agents are flustered and aggravated at having to comply with the rules and the customs of the Saudis. Jennifer Garner's character shows a combination of ignorance and disrespect when she meets a Saudi prince in a revealing tank top. The message to the audience is: These aren't messengers of diplomacy; to hell with Saudi customs, they have a job to do! Jamie Foxx's character is the leader and he is constantly playing the smart cop in another jurisdiction routine: "Just let me do my job because I know better than you! And I can solve this if you stop tying my hands!"

Just as Rambo once re-fought and won the Vietnam War, the Americans in The Kingdom are there to kick some terrorist ass and reassure American audiences that we could win the war on terror if only other countries' rules and laws weren't tying the hands of American tough guys (and gals).

A harrowing (and effectively suspenseful) climax has Jason Bateman's character kidnapped by terrorists, who bind and gag him, and set his execution up to be filmed, just as other torturous, real-life films of beheadings have made their way out of similar conflicts. Here is the film's inherent dishonesty: Just as the character is to be beheaded, the American agents burst into the room, killing all the terrorists and saving their friend. Using a situation that is beyond comprehension, the film suggests that American muscle can triumph over that which no one has yet been able to stop.

Early in the film, when word comes that one of their friends has been killed in the attack, Garner's character weeps. Foxx's character whispers to her, and she stops, but we aren't told until the very end what he said to her: "We're going to kill them all." That's the same sentiment that a dying terrorist leader whispers to his granddaughter near the film's end. You might think that the movie is showing how both sides are ignorant and that would be true, had we not just spent two hours seeing these U.S. agents who want to "kill them all" glorified as action heroes and problem solvers.

Newspaper ads for the film use a quote that proclaims it "the best movie of the year so far by far," according to a Fox News critic. Not surprising that the right-wing channel that has done it's best to legitimize American action in the Middle East and support a war that was a bad idea before it started would further encourage the public to see something positive in a movie that presents Americans only as do-gooders who are frustrated and hamstrung by other cultures. The movie is considered offensive enough that it has been banned in Bahrain and Kuwait, according to Daily Variety.

Anytime a movie presents itself as being topical, it owes a responsibility to the audience to present situations that bear some relation to reality. This film doesn't. Many Saudis - not just fundamentalists - resent the American presence in their country, and while the people that are victims of the attacks in the movie certainly don't deserve what happens to them, the real situation is more complex. American companies have been exploiting Saudi resources for decades, and an understanding of this would have provided a more complete picture for the film. Instead, it presents a simplistic portrait of a conflict that most audiences don't understand (especially since their ignorance is encouraged by the right-wing media), with characters descended from Rambo and other neanderthal tough guys.

The Kingdom is the most irresponsible movie in many years.

More info: Five Myths About U.S.-Saudi Relations

Frontline: Saudi Time Bomb?

Harvard International Review: The Saudi-US Relationship

Edwards: Most Electable?

2007-08-13T15:45:00.000-05:00

While most people read about the squabbles between the Clinton and Obama campaigns, the slipping fortunes of the McCain campaign, and the foot-in-the-mouth blunders from both the Giuliani and Romney camps, one story is being ignored: In several polls from various sources, John Edwards beats each of the Republican contenders by larger margins in most cases than his Democratic challengers.

In polls taken in June and July by Zogby, Rasmussen and Newsweek , Edwards beats Fred Thompson by an average of 11%, beats Mitt Romney by an average of 12.4%, beats John McCain by an average of 7.3%, and beats Rudolph Giuliani by an average of 2% (which is still greater than Hillary's match-up with Giuliani which puts her ahead by 1%). Only Barack Obama comes out with a higher average margin of victory against Giuliani (3.2%), Thompson (13%) and Romney (13%). There is a summary of the polls on RealClearPolitics.

However, in the most recent Rasmussen report, Edwards has a 7-point lead over Giuliani, up from a 4-point lead in early June. Also, Rasmussen says that Republican voters are less opposed to Edwards than to Clinton or Obama. Giuliani and Thompson only get 68% of the Republican vote when pitted against Edwards.

Giuliani said recently that he was a "first responder" on 9/11 and that he was at Ground Zero "as much or more than" the workers who were digging through the rubble. Rudy will continue to draw as many connections as he can between himself and the events of that day. But many fire departments have complained that it was the Giuliani administration that short-changed them and made them lack necessary equipment that could have saved lives. Giuliani's comments - not to mention his lack of humility - show an insensitivity.

And Mitt Romney, when asked why none of his five sons were serving in the military, said that his sons were serving their country by trying to get him elected because "they think I will be a great president." No doubt there are thousands of Americans serving in Iraq who would rather work on a destined-to-fail political campaign instead of fighting in a war. Romney certainly can challenge Giuliani in the lack of sensitivity department.

Meanwhile, the Edwards campaign has been addressing matters of substance and talking specifics while the Republicans are beating their chests and making ill-considered quips. Edwards' health care plan remains the most thorough of those presented by any candidate (only Obama also has a substantive plan on the table). As pointed out earlier, Edwards has been setting the agenda for the Democratic contest by addressing issues and concerns that the other candidates must comment on.

UPDATE: Although not widely reported, Edwards won a California straw poll held in Los Angeles over the weekend by the California Democratic Council. The CDC is made up of Democratic clubs and organizations throughout the state. Edwards got 41% of the vote, while 20% were undecided. Obama placed next with 14%. Clinton received 8% of the vote.

More info: The Real Liberal

Edwards Struggles In Democratic Nomination Race, but Does Well in General Election Match-ups

Why the Summer of Love Remains Relevant

2007-07-12T14:41:00.000-05:00

It has become commonplace to laugh about the Summer of Love. Conservatives, particularly, like to make fun of the excesses of that period, and some, like Ronald Reagan, built political careers by campaigning against the tenets of the counter-culture that built a movement around the notion of love.

The fact of the matter is that 1967 was anything but a peaceful, carefree period in history. The Vietnam War was heating up, with U.S. casualties mounting up to more than 11,000 that year alone, which was more than in the previous ten years combined. Race relations were deteriorating, despite (or perhaps as a consequence of) the progress of the civil rights movement, and destructive riots occurred in cities throughout the country. Anti-war forces got bigger and bolder, holding marches of previously unseen numbers, and the country found itself in a political divide unlike anything that preceded it.

Among this chaos and upheaval, people who believed in peace and understanding found a way to flourish. To some whose adherence to traditional political dogma was ingrained, it seemed a selfish, indulgent exercise, and a silly one at that. What were the hippies really accomplishing, other than "dropping out" of society, as Timothy Leary suggested? But to those with a more intellectual and open mind, the Summer of Love was an exercise in defiance, an entire way of thinking that evolved from the peaceful disobedience of the civil rights movement, and a way of being that wasn't dictated by government or corporate influence. After all, if all you need is love, how can Madison Avenue sell you things you don't really need? If you were to "get together and smile on your brother" (as the Youngbloods' song suggested), how can the government convince you to join the military and kill those they deem your enemies?

As historian Sean Wilentz points out in a recent article, the cultural divide that came to the fore in 1967 is still separating Americans today, and hasn't ever gone away. Reagan and his eventual running mate George H.W. Bush supported Barry Goldwater for president in 1964, and carried on the conservative cause in the decades that followed. Current president George W. Bush has been most damning to the peaceful side of the cultural divide. The country has another war with no end in sight, and another president who places himself and his administration above the law. Forty years ago, the U.S. had a Supreme Court that protected the rights of the powerless and strengthened individual liberties. Now, a Court packed with conservatives serves big business and gives government more power and individuals less of a voice.

Even if the Summer of Love couldn't hold sway over politics, it did permanently alter the nature of art, music, film and other creative endeavors. The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, released June 1, 1967, has been considered a cultural landmark for 40 years, and remains one of the most important works of art ever created. Music and art have always reflected the philosophy of the artists, but this period introduced the widespread acceptance of philosophical ideas in commercial, popular entertainment that could reach a vast audience. It changed the way we communicated, and now, it would be hard to imagine reaching any audience - commercial, political, artistic, even religious - without some sway from popular culture.

The lessons in the Summer of Love are there for all to see. You don't have to endorse drug use or promiscuity to appreciate the idea that human beings can live in a peaceful setting if they work at it instead of working for the purpose of war or material accumulation. It seems a far more radical idea to suggest that working for a peaceful society is not a desirable goal. Yet that's exactly what Vice President Dick Cheney said when he declared that he thought the nature of man was war, not peace. There's been little in the administrations of the last five Republican presidents to suggest that they care at all for peace, and the idea of love or understanding seems lost on them -- unless it's understanding the love of avarice.

This point is well illustrated in Mike Myers' comedy Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery, when the title character confronts his nemesis, Dr. Evil:

Dr. Evil:
Isn't it ironic, Mr. Powers, that the very things you stand for -- swinging, free love, parties, distrust of authority- are all now... considered to be... evil? Maybe we have more in common than you care to admit.

Austin:
No, man, what we swingers were rebelling against were uptight squares like you, whose bag was money and world domination. We were innocent, man. If we'd known the consequences of our sexual liberation, we would have done things differently, but the spirit would have remained the same. It's freedom, man.

Pictures of young people in colorful clothes with flowers in their hair, meditating in a park somewhere, needn't be dismissed as silly anachronisms. Look at them as a portal to a different way of living, and an alternative solution to a culture of greed and war.

More info: The Hippie Era Just Won't Die

San Francisco: The Start of the Revolution

Counterculture of the Sixties

The Sixties: Years Of Hope, Days Of Rage (book review)

'Six Years of Deceit' On Global Warming

2007-06-21T15:51:00.000-05:00

"Six Years of Deceit" is essential reading in the latest issue of Rolling Stone. Tim Dickinson lays out how the Bush administration set out to ease environmental regulations, despite rhetoric to the contrary that they were interested in protecting the environment or increasing the nation's response to global warming.

Through the Freedom of Information Act, the magazine was able to obtain thousands of pages of internal documents that show the administration led an effort to mislead the public on the issues and create doubts about generally-accepted scientific conclusions. All of which, they believe, justify their inaction in the face of the changes that most credible scientists say are happening and will only get worse - in some cases, exponentially worse.

The article quotes Rick Plitz, who once worked in the Bush administration, who said the real issue was "a political clientele that does not want to be regulated." Meanwhile, the president went out and proclaimed that "We must and we will conserve more in the United States," but yet saw to it that federal efficiency programs had their funding cut by about one-third. All of the administration's proposals involve voluntary participation, leaving it up to industries that have business interests to the contrary to do what is in the best interests of the nation and the world. The president calls this approach "flexible," but it is really just naive.

Like the war in Iraq, this administration's position on global warming and efforts to correct it seem set in stone. They're simply not going to change any of their policies in the next 19 months, and the harmful effects of their inaction will be the responsibility of the next administration, making it all the more essential that a different kind of leader be chosen to succeed George Bush.

["Six Years Of Deceit" can be read online here. The article can also be found in the June 28, 2007, issue of Rolling Stone.]

More info: Global Warming - A Real Solution by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Bush's Global Warming Foot-Dragging
Will Ferrell: Bush on Global Warming

Congress Doesn't Learn Vietnam's Lesson, Iraq War Drags On

2007-05-17T16:07:00.000-05:00

The war is dragging on. It has now lasted longer that World War II. Yesterday, Congress failed to authorize a plan that would block funding of the Iraq war beyond April 1 of next year, meaning, in all likelihood, that the war will continue past that date. President Bush has said the war will not end on his watch, which means it will continue at least until his successor is sworn in on Jan. 20, 2009.

Withdrawl of funding for the war is the best chance anyone has to stop the Bush administration and end the war. Congress is authorized to do so under the law, and with public sentiment running so high against the war, it's a wonder they did not.

The bill introduced by Senator Russell Feingold (D-Wisc.) would have limited funds after April 1 to training Iraqi forces and for counter-terrorism efforts. A tepid, competing bill from Republicans, which was also defeated, would only have required Bush to present "progress reports" in July and September, with only the possibility that foreign aid could be withheld if certain benchmarks weren't met. A provision added to the Republican bill at the insistence of the White House would have allowed Bush to waive any penalties. In short, it was a bill with no teeth and did not challenge the administration.

To their credit, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted for the Democratic measure, which will no doubt please their Democratic supporters. John Edwards has been calling on Congress to cut off funding for the war for months now. By contrast, all of the Republican presidential candidates have said they will continue the war in one fashion or another (although their tune may change when they reach a general election where they have to appeal to a majority of Americans rather than the rapid right-wing base).

Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) described the need to end the war as soon as possible. He said, "How many more soldiers do we have to bury? How many more do we have to bring into our military and veterans hospitals? How many more thousands of innocent Iraqis have to die before we finally accept our responsibility to bring this war to an end?" In a statement, Edwards stressed the historical need for the war funding to be cut: "In 1971, Congress repealed the resolution authorizing the Vietnam War - and the war continued for four long years until Congress stopped funding it."

When generals and analysts have said there is no military solution to the war in Iraq, what can be gained by continuing the U.S. military presence there? It seems what U.S. politicans who have supported the war feel is most at stake is their careers. There's no other logical explantion for continuing this effort, which seems, like Vietnam, fated to end badly for the U.S.

In the early 1970s, Congress considered 18 proposals to restrict funding for military operations in Southeast Asia, and only five were enacted. Congress never actually cut off funds for U.S. combat operations in Vietnam itself while American troops were there, despite efforts to do just that. Combatting calls for the end of war funding, President Ford said the U.S. couldn't "abandon our friends while our adversaries support and encourage theirs." Sound familiar? Congress eventually stopped funding, and the war ended.

It's unfortunate that in more than 30 years, Congress hasn't learned anything. The deaths of many more Americans and Iraqis are sure to come in the next few years, while the countdown to the end of the war ticks away. By not ending the funding now, Congress and the Bush administration are causing the misery of thousands. All of which isn't necessary, since the lessons of history show that the end of the war - without what Bush considers "victory" - is inevitable.

More info: Echoes From an Earlier Conflict

No military solution to Iraq, U.S. general says

Experts Speak: No Good Military Options in Iran

There is no military solution for Iraq, only a political one

How Many Deaths Will It Take?

2007-04-17T15:23:00.000-05:00

As news of the horrific scene at Virginia Tech unfolded yesterday, some pundits said now was not the time to start talking about gun control, saying that it would be an exploitation of the tragedy for political purposes. President Bush said "now is not the time" for a debate, and he said it should wait until "we're actually certain about what happened." But only someone opposed to gun control would say such a thing. If now is not the time to discuss greater gun control, when is? It's only a political issue because lines have been drawn by the political parties.

Virginia has among the most lenient gun laws in the country. There are no requirements for licensing or training, and if one buys a weapon at gun show, there is no background check or waiting period. If a person completes a background check, Virginia law requires that a concealed carry permit be issued to anyone who applies. (Virginia does not allow guns to be carried on school campuses.)

Contrary to what most people are told, the U.S. Constitution doesn't give everyone the right to own a gun. The Second Amendment conveys the right "to keep and bear arms" for the purposes of maintaining a well-regulated militia. This was written in the days before there were federal armed forces, state police, local police and so forth. In the absence of a need for a militia made up of citizens, there is no right to own a gun.

That realization is anathema to gun owners and members of the National Rifle Association, the premier special interest group in the nation, which has fought all reasonable attempts at gun control. Nothing less than completely un-regulated gun ownership will satisfy the extremists at the NRA, which is among the richest and most powerful of all lobbying groups and which can strike fear in politicians seeking to win elections. During the news broadcasts of the events yesterday, Fox News host John Gibson gave the right-wing party line: If other students or faculty had been armed, they could have defended themselves and others. It seems, to gun advocates, that the answer to violence is more violence. Preventing violence has never occurred to them. Of course, the NRA is also supported by corporations that make and sell weapons, so there is an inherent conflict of interest and a self-serving nature of their position.

Not all politicians cower to the gun lobby: Barack Obama has gone on record before this latest incident, saying the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons should be banned, state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms should be increased, and manufacturers should be required to provide child-safety locks with firearms. He also supports lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

John Edwards has said in the past he supports closing the gun-show loophole and preventing convicted criminals of owning guns. Edwards has also said, however, that gun ownership is about "independence," and he supports the right to own them. He nevertheless said he supports lawsuits that would hold gun manufacturers accountable. Hillary Clinton has advocated registering and licensing all handgun sales, and has said "there are too many guns and too many children have access." In the Senate, Clinton voted against the bill that would have granted the gun industry immunity from lawsuits.

Rudy Giuliani has said that "just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they’re intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun." John McCain, who has said in the past that he favors safety locks on guns, voted against gun control legislation in the Senate. McCain voted against the assault weapons ban of 1994 (which President Bush allowed to expire in 2004) and also voted against the Brady Bill, which would have required a five-day waiting period for gun buyers.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney said in the past he supported the assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill, but lately - as he courts Republican voters - he has shied away from being a strong gun-control advocate and instead, his campaign describes him as someone who has worked to ease gun-control laws.

The NRA and people who support unrestricted gun laws foster a culture of violence. Indeed, the notion that everyone should be armed encourages it. There is another way, led by people who believe a more peaceful existence is possible. It starts with legitimate, strong gun control legislation, and with efforts like the one by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to hold gun manufacturers accountable.

But as long as the likes of the Bush Administration is in charge, none of this will come to pass. The Bush Administration, along with the gun lobby and its allies in Congress, suppressed crime gun trace data, exposing the complicity of gun dealers in supplying the illegal gun market in order to aid gun makers in civil court cases and shield the industry from negative public attention.

Despite the fact that polls find gun control has strong support from Americans, there is unlikely to be any changes in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings. That's because Democrats - and Bill Clinton - believe the passage of the Brady Bill in 1993 and the assault weapons ban in 1994 led to the defeat of the Democrats in the 1994 Congressional elections, due to the intense lobbying of the NRA. Al Gore's failure to win states in the south in 2000 is also blamed on the NRA, to some degree, and their mischaracterization of his position. The NRA did the same thing to John Kerry in 2004. It matters little that gun control has broad public support, or that most law-enforcement agencies around the country support it, since the NRA's scare tactics have made the issue toxic for politicians.

As a general rule, however, no politician who takes money from the gun manufacturers or has support of the NRA can be taken seriously on gun control. Eight years after the shootings at Columbine, with all the other shootings since - including last year's incident at an Amish school in rural Pennsylvania - the country's lax gun legislation is the same. Families who have suffered losses from these senseless acts of violence deserve better than to see our national well-being held hostage by the likes of the NRA. Again, if now is not the time to talk about these issues, when? If this generation doesn't start to correct the epidemic of gun violence, who will?

More info: A Case For Gun Control

A Tragedy of Monumental Proportions

Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence

Bowling For Columbine: Teacher's Guide

What Took So Long?

2007-04-13T14:43:00.000-05:00

Don Imus was fired, and it's about damn time.

As a radio personality, Imus was always more than a little obnoxious, but that was his "voice," and so be it. But for more than 25 years, he exhibited an attitude toward people of other colors and sexes that can only be classified as racist and sexist. Maybe it's the culture that finally became advanced enough in 2007 to say that his behavior isn't acceptable. Why wasn't he fired in the early 1980s when he dedicated the Queen song "Another One Bites The Dust" to the children of Atlanta, during the Atlanta child murders of that period? Thirty black children and young adults were killed in a two-year period, starting in 1979. Why did Imus never apologize to their families? Or to the Atlanta community? Why did the company that broadcast him never say "You went too far; we don't want to be the station that has that kind of misanthropy on the airwaves"?

Thirteen years ago, in 1994, Imus played a song that advised President Clinton on how to handle the Paula Jones situation: "Pimp slap the ho." Imus' sidekick and executive producer Bernard McGuirk recently said Hillary Clinton, after her speech in Selma, Alabama, would have "corn-rows and gold teeth" by the time her campaign against Barack Obama was finished. He also called her "a bitch." Back in the '90s, Imus referred to a black New York Times reporter as "the cleaning lady."

As New York Times columnist Bob Herbert pointed out this week, a 60 Minutes segment on Imus from 1998 confronts him with evidence that he said McGuirk was there "to do nigger jokes." Imus admitted using that word. And yet, his employers, his broadcasters did nothing. Imus regularly called Arabs "ragheads," called women "skanks," used many dismissive terms for Jewish people ("thieving Jews," "beanie-wearing little Jew boy"), and used several gay epithets, such as "lesbo" and "faggot."

What is it about talk radio that brings out the sort of people who routinely use this kind of demeaning language? Perhaps in their search for greater ratings, networks use the lowest common denominator to get the most listeners. That would be nothing new -- television networks have done it for years. (Fear Factor, anyone?) As the web site MediaMatters.org points out on a regular basis, the airwaves are full of personalities who spew bigotry on every day. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Michael Savage are but a few of the "commentators" that remind us every day that racism and sexism are not old prejudices that have been conquered, but rather vibrant cancers that need constant vigilance. An excellent piece today by Harvey Fierstein shows how far the culture still has to go.

Imus' defenders have said that CBS and MSNBC acted hastily and that a national dialogue should have been started on these issues. Assuming that what we've heard for the last ten days wasn't a national dialogue, what is it they wanted to discuss? Whether racist comedy is okay? Whether we want to give it legitimacy by having it fester on the airwaves? Who is the dialogue with, Michael Richards? Perhaps the end result of the dialogue was that people convinced advertisers not to support public personalities who demean others based on race and sex.

Don't anyone cry for Imus. He's going to retire with hundreds of millions of dollars and live very well the rest of his life. But his 30 years on the radio, unfortunately, left many people with the notion that making fun of someone's color is okay and demeaning someone because of their gender or religion or sexual orientation is too. Despite the money he made, that's a pretty shameful way to have lived your life.

More info: It's Not Just Imus (A Media Matters Report)
Imus' Words: Recognizing Real Racism by Jon Landau
Paying the Price (New York Times subscription required)
Our Prejudices, Ourselves by Harvey Fierstein

Obama Shows There's Money In Politics Without Lobbyists

2007-04-05T15:22:00.000-05:00

Barack Obama's impressive first-quarter fund-raising says a lot about how this presidential race is shaping up. The $25 million his campaign has reported for the first three months of 2007 nearly matches Hillary Clinton's tally, and Obama lists 100,000 donors, more than twice the number Clinton lists. Obama's appeal could be broader, and a large donor base such as that could give him an advantage in the months ahead, when contributors get tired of writing checks every quarter.

The larger point that Obama's fund-raising illustrates is the strong support Democratic candidates have over their Republican counterparts. Democrats have raised about $80 million, while Republicans have raised about $50 million. The difference is striking because Republicans - long the party of the very wealthy and of corporate favor - have always held a financial advantage in fund-raising contests. Among the top three Democratic candidates, they list nearly 200,000 contributors. Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney list 60,000 and 33,000 contributors, respectively. (Rudy Guiliani's campaign did not disclose the number of donors.)

Republican candidate McCain was thought to be the favorite for his party's nomination, but yet his funds lagged Guiliani and Romney. McCain raised $12.5 million to Guiliani's nearly $15 million and Romney's $20 million. That news couldn't have come at a worse time for McCain, who has been severely criticized for his claims that the Baghdad streets are getting safer. Both western journalists and Baghdad merchants have said McCain is dead wrong for claiming that Americans can walk around without protection and that segments of the city are secure. That McCain walked around Baghdad wearing a bullet-proof vest with dozens of soldiers in tow and helicopters overhead seemed almost an admission of his mistake. Hardly what the people expect from the "straight talk" candidate.

Before the announcement of his first-quarter totals, Obama was quoted as saying he raised "obscene" amounts of money. He's right, of course, but for right now, that's how the game is played. Candidates who want to be competitive need very large sums of money. The influence of money in politics assures that those with large amounts of it can participate, while those who can't afford it must sit on the sidelines and watch. Money has been declared to be protected speech, which begs the question: What does no money mean? No speech? Once upon a time, citizens had to own property to be able to vote. We've now reached a point where people have to have large amounts of money to participate in elections, and since only the very wealthy have that kind of money to spread around, most people are left out and apathetic about a process that doesn't include them.

But that, too, is a notion that is being challenged in this election. John Edwards - whose campaign raised more than $14 million - said that 80% of all contributions were $100 or less.Thousands of Obama's supporters contributed only $25 or less - some as little as $5. What this says is that anyone with enough money for a pack of cigarettes or popcorn at the movies can participate. Internet fundraising is also leveling the field and allowing people of modest means to have a say in the election. Both Obama and Edwards have made use of Internet techniques to their advantage. Both candidates maintain their connection to their supporters over the web, as does Clinton. Any campaign that isn't sending e-mails to supporters on a virtually daily basis - keeping people informed of their policies and the status of their campaigns, and just letting them know they're still alive - isn't using the Internet effectively. Every e-mail doesn't have to be a request for money (and shouldn't be), but constant communication, along with alerts to public and television appearances, is a great alternative to reliance on the media.

Ultimately, what is really needed is public financing of all elections, along with a requirement that all broadcasters - as part of the public interest requirement for their broadcast license - provide free air time to the candidates. (After all, most money in elections goes to fund expensive television ad time.) That will really be a huge step to stopping the poisonous influence of corporate money on political contests. To get to that point, though, leaders like Obama and Edwards are needed, because the George W. Bushes of the political world are never going to limit the influence of money, since that's what got them there in the first place.

Edwards and Obama have each said in statements that none of the money they raised in the first quarter came from political action committees or federal lobbyists, and that their campaigns are not accepting such funds. If that had been the rule rather than the exception, how much would the other candidates have raised? If all politicians had done the same years ago, there's no way someone like George Bush would have become president. Think of all the lives that could have been saved. That's what's at stake with money in politics, and why such change is necessary.

More info: Is Money Equal To Free Speech?

Obama Raises $25 million, Challenges Clinton's Front-Runner Status

Obama Testimony On Reducing Lobbyist Influence

Romney Chooses Running Mates - If That's Okay With James Dobson

2007-03-30T15:13:00.000-05:00

Despite an unsettled field for the Republican presidential nomination, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is already talking about potential vice-presidential running mates. At a campaign stop in South Carolina, he threw out the names of South Carolina's own conservative governor, Mark Sanford, the ethically-challenged former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and the religious right's favorite son, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush.

The move is, of course, presumptuous, but Romney must be willing to risk seeming a little arrogant so that he can convince conservatives that he's their guy. The extreme right-wing of the Republican Party hasn't been happy with front-runners Romney, Rudy Guiliani and John McCain. They're not even happy with Fred Thompson, former senator from Tennessee, who is said to be considering a run, and looking to fill a void for the religious right. (Doesn't look like that's happening, at least not if James Dobson - the hard right's voice - has anything to say.)

Romney had the nicest things to say about Jeb Bush, saying that "I love him." Then, seemingly admitting that President George W. Bush's standing with the public is a problem, he added "If his name weren't Bush, he'd be running for president, I'm convinced." How lucky for the rest of us that the younger Bush didn't adopt a stage name, or we'd see a continuation of this dynasty of disaster. Sanford is an obvious name to drop for anyone hoping to score points with the conservative voters in South Carolina. Christian conservatives tried to enlist Sanford himself as a presidential candidate, although he declined.

Meanwhile, conservative religious guru James Dobson, who seems to think he's choosing the next president all by himself, said Romney "can't win" because "there are conservative Christians who will not vote for him because of his Mormon faith." Out the vast field of candidates, Dobson only had good things to say about Gingrich, whom he called "the brightest guy out there." It seems Newt must be a shining example of religious redemption for Dobson to praise him like that.

The Republican Party is being held hostage by religious conservatives like Dobson, since every candidate seems to feel the need to genuflect to the religious right. McCain's gone back on his comments that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were "agents of intolerance" and even Guiliani - tough guy from Brooklyn - seems to feel it is necessary to qualify those of his socially-moderate stances that the religious right doesn't like.

Romney - who has his own troubles with the religious conservatives who don't like his back-tracking on gay rights and his Mormon faith - is clearly trying to gain favor with them by choosing three potential running mates that he knows the right approves: Sanford, whom they tried to enlist; Bush, who's been called one of the religious right's "strongest elected officials;" and Gingrich, who practically has Dobson's Focus on the Family seal of approval stamped on his forehead. All of which is designed to get an endorsement from Dobson, who claims he only talks about politics as "a private individual," so as not to upset the non-profit status of his group.

If ever there was anybody who needed a tax audit, it's Dobson. To paraphrase George Carlin, if he wants to talk politics and influence elections, let him pay his admission fee like everyone else.

More info: Romney Lists Potential Running Mates
Christian Right Labors To Find '08 Candidate
James Dobson is set to topple the political establishment

Edwards Campaign Shaping Election

2007-03-23T16:03:00.000-05:00

Despite the news of his wife's recurrence of cancer, John Edwards said that his campaign for president will continue "strongly." There is a lot ahead of them that they can't possibly know yet, but if there's anyone running a strong - and honest - campaign in this presidential election so far, it is John Edwards.

Candidates for political office, especially presidential candidates, are often short on specifics. Everyone knows the routine: a candidate promises a fresh start, new ideas, a way out of bad prior policy decisions, a strengthening of vaguely defined values, and a host of other proposals that sound good but lack specificity. Perhaps the best example of this was Richard Nixon's promise in the 1968 campaign of a "secret plan" to end the Vietnam War, which he would only disclose if he won. (He did, and there wasn't any, as he later admitted in his memoirs.)

Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina and former vice-presidential candidate, seems as fed up with that kind of campaign as the rest of the country. In the few short months since it began, his campaign has released detailed plans for health care reform and combating climate change, among other proposals. He was the first to call for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign, prompting responses from the other candidates. His campaign declared itself carbon neutral recently, presenting a standard for the others to match. He was also the first Democrat to pull out of a Nevada debate that was being run by Fox News, known for its hostility to Democrats. Other candidates followed suit and eventually, the Nevada Democratic Party dropped Fox. Whether he is ultimately successful or not, there is no denying Edwards is strongly shaping this election.

While President Bush is sticking with his idea of voluntary measures to combat global warming, this week Edwards proposed mandatory caps on the emission of heat-trapping gases and stricter standards for auto emissions as well. Not only does Edwards reject the idea that these proposals will harm the economy, he said the government could help in creating a new energy-based economy with the benefit of adding one million new jobs, a feat that the Bush administration hasn't come close to in their years in office. The League of Conservation Voters recently issued a statement praising the Edwards plan, along with a similar bill that is in Congress. The League said Edwards' plan shows "he understands the magnitude of the challenge before us."

Meanwhile, Edwards' health care plan has drawn praise from Princeton economist and New York Times op-ed writer Paul Krugman, who called it a "smart, serious proposal." ("Edwards Gets It Right," New York Times, Feb. 9, 2007.) Long on specifics, the Edwards plan would guarantee insurance for all citizens and monitor insurance companies who "game the system" by only insuring healthy people. Edwards even went so far as to say he'd pay for this program by eliminating the Bush tax cut on the wealthiest of Americans, which would simply put them back where they were during the Clinton years. No other candidate has been bold enough to say anything of the kind.

Which is not to say they won't. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson may yet come out with detailed plans to rival Edwards', but so far they haven't. (Krugman quotes Clinton as saying she is "not ready to be specific.") The same goes for the Republican candidates. And it's worth keeping in mind that Bush's plan for health care includes taxing the middle class on their "golden" plans -- an idea that was dead in the water as soon as he presented it.

The Edwards campaign, so far, is the only one talking about poverty in America, and around the world. While he hasn't used the "Two Americas" theme of his 2004 campaign extensively this time around, Edwards has been a constant voice on this subject. The Boston Globe said in 2005 that "Edwards got it right about poverty."

Yet every time the issue comes up, the Republicans cry that the other side is trying to wage "class warfare," which is their way of not talking about the subject. If any party's policies have created warfare among the classes, it is the Republicans, who for more than 25 years have adopted economic policies that have hurt working people. Meanwhile, Edwards - who ran the poverty center at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill - recently said confronting global poverty would actually make the U.S. safer, since terrorism thrives in failed states.

We wish John and Elizabeth Edwards the very best in their latest struggle. We hope her health remains as good as it appeared yesterday for many years to come. And we hope to see both of them stay on the campaign trail as long as they can, running a different kind of campaign and, in the process, creating a legacy of which the nation can continue to be proud. Whether or not they end up in the White House in January 2009, the Edwardses have already presented a better presidential campaign.

More info: Edwards Gets It Right (NYT, subscription required)

Edwards: Jesus Would Be 'Appalled'

JohnEdwards.com

Is It Too Late For Rehab?

2007-03-09T14:01:00.000-05:00

Newt Gingich is sorry. He's admitted that he cheated on his wife while he was pushing impeachment on Bill Clinton for lying about an affair. So he told right-wing crackpot James Dobson that he "sought God's forgiveness" and has "gotten on my knees."

Of course, Gingrich is pushing a new book called Rediscovering God in America, and is saying he will run for the Republican presidential nomination "as a last resort." What he means is that if the front-runners for the GOP nomination aren't satisfactory to the hard-core right, he'll step in as their savior. Oh, and did he mention he's selling a book with "God" in the title? And that he's really, really sorry for that affair (and those three marriages)?

Meanwhile, Gingrich is pulling in $50,000 for every speaking appearance (he makes about 60 a year) and running a for-profit "think tank" on health care that promotes the business interests of its backers (yeah, that's a great academic exercise), according to a report in the Philadelphia Inquirer on Jan. 21. Also in January, Gingrich's new 527 group, "American Solutions for Winning the Future," got a $1 million donation from Sheldon Adelson, a casino CEO and prominent donor to the GOP. (Wow, a new group that includes the title of Gingrich's previous book! Quite a coincidence!) Fortune magazine, which disclosed Gingrich's speaking fees, said his post-Congressional career is "making him rich." He's also a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the same think tank funded by Exxon that is offering reward money to any scientists or economists who are willing to dispute the U.N's report on global warming.

Gingrich claims his "American Solutions" group is bipartisan (is there any 527 group that is?), but yet the group proposes private savings accounts for Social Security, "patriotic education" in public schools and appointment of judges that understand "the centrality of God in American history." It's amazing how much stock Gingrich is taking in God these days now that he might need the right-wing religious vote if he chooses to run for president (expect an obscene amount of religious rhetoric if he does).

Calling his bid for the presidency a "last resort" (gee, are we imposing?), Gingrich said he wants to influence the race by providing both parties with "solutions" to health care, energy, education, national security and immigration issues. Lucky for us that he's set up a for-profit company to do all that.

Has there ever been a bigger political phony that Newt Gingrich? His few years of prominence in the 1990s were highlighted by mean-spirited attacks on the poor, back-handed attempts to gut environmental regulation and legendary power-grabs. He's still at it, too: At last week's Conservative Political Action Conference, Gingrich alleged that the reason disaster hit New Orleans' Ninth Ward during Hurricane Katrina is "a failure of citizenship." He said the people were "so uneducated and so unprepared, they literally couldn't get out of the way of a hurricane." Never mind the ineptitude of those in charge at the federal level or the lack of response or the disdain for the role of government that conservatives have which he helped establish, it's the peoples' fault!

He has skillfully played the "family values" card throughout his political career, and yet he's an admitted adulterer. He's also a draft-dodger, having avoided service in Vietnam with a combination of student and family deferments, and marrying one of his teachers when he was 19 years old. His first wife - with whom he discussed the terms of divorce when she was hospitalized - sued him for child support when utilities were going to be cut off.

He's also bounced 22 checks during the House Banking scandal, and violated House ethics rules for using taxpayer donations for his personal and political purposes. (He had, at one point or another, 84 ethics charges filed against him while in the House.) He's appeared on Fox News quite a bit - and why not, since they're politically attuned to one another? - and has even hosted specials for them. But is that because Rupert Murdoch owns his ass? In 1995, one of Murdoch 's publishing companies offered Gingrich $4.5 million for a book, while Murdoch was having problems with a complaint from NBC that Fox is a foreign-owned network (which is against U.S. law). Gingrich and Murdoch had several meetings (one reportedly on a park bench) but said their purpose was politics, not contracts. (Gingrich eventually took a lucrative royalty-based deal in lieu of the $4.5 million.)

By the way, news of Gingrich's affair during the impeachment period isn't new. In 1998, it was reported that he told his (second) wife that he was leaving her for a woman 23 years younger than him. The news apparently came to her when Gingrich called his mother-in-law to give her birthday wishes, and then asked to speak to his wife, who was brought to tears by the news. By that point, Gingrich had allegedly been seeing the younger woman for at least three years (she eventually became his third wife). Meanwhile, in his professional capacity, Gingrich said those who didn't support the so-called morality of his allies in the Christian Coalition were "abnormal."

Let's not forget that Gingrich recently said that free speech should be curtailed in the U.S. in order to fight terrorism. Since President Bush has told the nation that this is a war unlike any other and could last generations, Gingrich is proposing a fundamental - and for all intents and purposes, permanent - restriction of freedoms. Gingrich has - both in the past and in the present - advocated a second Constitutional Convention, at which the U.S. Constitution would be revised. This is a man who respects our national heritage? Anyone who doesn't believe in the Constitution shouldn't be running for an office where the job is to protect the Constitution.

The only thing that's new in Gingrich's "confession" to James Dobson is his penitence. All he has to do now is go to rehab and blame a bottle or a pill or bad sexual urges. Throughout his career and his personal life, Gingrich has been a hypocrite, using "family values" to motivate voters whose morality he doesn't share, while acting as an agent in the government for powerful corporate interests and enriching himself in the process. Don't dismiss him; he's as dangerous a political entity and a genuine threat to democracy and freedom as this country has ever seen.

There aren't many who could claim the title of "most despicable" from the likes of Tricky Dick Nixon (although there are several in the current Bush administration vying for the title), but Newt Gingrich qualifies for and has achieved his own grotesque stature.

More info: Newt Gingrich's Skeleton Closet

Newt World Order

Gingrich: House GOP Would Be Accused Of 'Gay Bashing' If Pursued Foley

Let's Impeach the President

2007-03-08T14:47:00.000-05:00

How is it that the right wing portrays anyone who talks about impeaching George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as nutcases, yet acted as though the impeachment of Bill Clinton was the most important action of government since the signing of the Constitution? How is it that they equate Clinton's actions, which were of a personal nature, with Bush and Cheney's, which have resulted in the deaths of thousands, not to mention a shredded Constitution?

On Tuesday, more than 30 towns in Vermont passed resolutions calling for the impeachment of the president for misleading the nation on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and for engaging in illegal wiretapping, among other charges. Richard Nixon faced charges that were less severe, and he resigned when it became clear his impeachment was imminent. The political winds were against Nixon, and have been in Bush's favor, although that's changing.

Most now believe - finally - that Bush and Cheney misled the country into war, and as the Iraq situation gets worse with each passing day, more Americans see the mess they've gotten the country into, and the question arises: How do you hold them accountable?

Republicans won't even let the Senate debate a resolution that would simply criticize the president's decisions on the war, so how can we expect them to allow impeachment to come up? Well, we can't. The House of Representatives could bring up the issue of impeachment - even though Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she is not in favor of it - but the Senate would never convict Bush, and so, unlike Nixon, Bush would never feel impeachment was imminent and would never resign.

So why are the good people of Vermont (and other states as well) pushing it? It's because average citizens have been so helpless to stop the Bush administration's destructive policies that passing resolutions of impeachment is the best way to channel and express their outrage. This president and vice president have so threatened the rule of law - and placed themselves above it - that impeachment, however improbable, is the only option left. Add to the mix the administration's constant breaking of the law, and you've got a case for high crimes and misdemeanors, the standard the Constitution requires for removal.

It is indeed a topsy-turvy world when Bill Clinton could be impeached for not telling the truth about an affair, but George Bush cannot for starting a war under false pretenses and violating explicit laws about spying on U.S. citizens. People want to impeach Bush because of his policies and the substance of what he has done in office. Republicans impeached Bill Clinton because they didn't like him.

Clinton was villified by the right wing from the early days of his presidential campaign. Conservatives hated him for his baby-boomer background and intellectual openness. The cultural wars of the 1960s have never gone away, and they manifested in the 1990s battle between Clinton and the Republican-led Congress. (Right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan explicitly declared a "culture war" during the 1992 campaign. Newt Gingrich once called the Clintons "counter-culture McGoverniks." Sounds like a compliment where we're sitting.) They just didn't like him - or his wife - or approve of their lifestyle. So when they could embarass him publicly for having an affair, they did. Shut down the government! The president kissed a girl!

Today, there are plenty of people who don't like George Bush and Dick Cheney. Does that mean the president and vice president are bad people? We don't know. We'll never know if Bush cheats on his wife, is short-tempered with his children, or kicks his dog. To the extent that those things don't make him a hypocrite, they don't matter.

What matters is the ideas behind the administration. Experts say Bush administration policies have actually made the country less safe in the wake of 9/11. The wiretapping program clearly violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. And lying to the people, massaging intelligence reports to say what you want them to say and commiting the country to war has got to be high on the list of high crimes for any president. (Neil Young wrote a song about it last year, "Let's Impeach the President," and the lyrics spell out the reasons.)

Conservatives will always say "don't put the country through it," referring to impeachment. But it was okay when Clinton was president? It's okay to put the country through a mangling of the Constitution, a redistribution of wealth to those who need it least and an illegal and seemingly never-ending war? How much longer do we have to hear this Republican hypocrisy?

If there was any justice, impeachment proceedings would begin tomorrow and Bush and Cheney would be packing their bags. But the political reality is very different, despite what the people of Vermont (and many of the rest of us) might think. There are certainly those who would say Bush and Cheney are patriots, but how is patriotism defined? They haven't been loyal to the ideas that the nation was founded upon, or which it has fought to protect. They've shown disdain for the very concept of government, and against all reason and logic, have pushed ahead with politics and policies that divide the country and harm its citizens. Greater disrespect has never been paid to the nation's laws and traditions, and - absent impeachment - a greater confounding of justice has never been seen.

More info: The Impeachment of George W. Bush

Impeachment: The Case In Favor

The Hippie Era Just Won't Die

Impeach07 Initiatives

Pardon Me? (Or: Why Bush Will Pardon Libby)

2007-03-07T15:12:00.000-05:00

Scooter Libby's been found guilty and in the three months or so before his sentencing, the question will continue to be debated as to whether George W. Bush will pardon him. The answer is: Of course he will.

The only thing standing between Libby and many years of prison is his ability to cut a deal with prosecutors. What does Libby have that they would want? Information on the leak scandal and how far up the ladder of the Bush administration it goes. What could convince him to keep quiet? A presidential pardon.

It's hardly unprecedented. Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, and damned himself and his party as a result. The former President Bush pardoned former Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger and others who were set to go to trial in the Iran-Contra affair, thus assuring that the public would never receive an accounting of what transpired. Among those also pardoned was Elliott Abrams, who went on to be George W. Bush's Special Assistant and Senior Director on the National Security Council. The former President Bush issued the pardons after the 1992 election, when he had nothing left to lose politically. (Although, he stood to lose if the truth about Iran-Contra came out, since he was said to be a key player.)

The timing of the pardon depends on how much the current president is concerned with the reaction of his own party. The Republicans have to know that a Libby pardon will taint them even more than the Watergate scandal did more than 30 years ago. They should be joining Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's call for Bush to pledge not to pardon Libby. It's in their self-interest and their party's longevity to do so.

If Bush pardons Libby before the sentencing or before the end of his term, his legislative agenda is over. Nothing that the Bush administration prioritizes will gain any ground in the next year and a half, and his own party will turn on him. (It's amazing more of them haven't already. What has Bush done for them?) More likely, Bush will gamble that Libby knows a pardon is coming and will keep his mouth shut, and a pardon will come in time for Christmas 2008, after the election is over. Bush will leave office with a smirk and Republicans will wonder why they ever supported someone who so carelessly damaged their party.

It's been said that the CIA leak case is the loose thread which could unravel the entire ball of string of the Bush administration's false case for going to war and its general lawlessness. Bush and Cheney know that the only chance they have to stop that is to keep Scooter Libby out of jail. So Bush will pardon him, not because he's a patriot (the excuse his father used in pardoning the Iran-Contra figures), not because it's in the national interest (it's in the national interest for the truth to come out!), not because justice hasn't been served (Libby received a fair trial), but simply because their asses are on the line.

More info: Libby - The Fall Guy

The Case Against the War

Bush Pardons 6 in Iran Affair, Aborting a Weinberger Trial; Prosecutor Assails 'Cover-Up'

School-Yard Politics and Train-Wreck TV

2007-03-06T13:46:00.000-05:00

Most people learn at a young age that one of the surest signs that someone has lost an argument is when they have no response, and resort to name-calling. The older you got, the nastier the names got, but the result was the same: Your opponent had nothing substantive to say and could not dispute your position.

Ann Coulter is the 13-year-old schoolyard bully on the national political scene. Her vicious name-calling in reference to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards last Friday underscored that not only is she not a woman of substance, but the same hateful, scared child that attacked everyone who ever thought differently than she did.

Coulter also, evidently, has a problem with homosexuality. It seems to be her epithet of choice, as she's used it to attempt to demean John Edwards, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton. But why? What is it about that label she pins on people that makes her feel superior? (It is worth noting that she allegedly has a brother who is gay.) Is she inferring that homosexuals are weak, and therefore ineffective leaders? Does she think we could possibly have more ineffective leadership than George W. Bush? And if Coulter thinks Bush is ineffective, does that mean she thinks he's gay too?

The answer, of course, is that there is no answer. Coulter has no logic to her arguments. She's staked out a place on the extreme right-wing fringe (she's on record as saying Joe McCarthy was right in his witch hunts of the 1950s and that he was a "great American")and she's sticking to it, although all she seems to be doing to defend her beliefs is to engage in name-calling. What does she think of John Edwards' healthcare plan? Or Barack Obama's healthcare plan? Or Al Gore's environmental policy recommendations? We don't know because she hasn't bothered to say, although we're sure she'd simply dismiss the individuals without addressing their ideas.

Hey, maybe all this politics and policy is over her head. That's fine; it's not for everyone. But, what, then, makes her think she's qualified to talk about these people? There are probably some extremists who admire her for speaking her mind, however hate-filled it may be. Maybe there are those who admire her mean streak.

Coulter got her start in political commentary on MSNBC in the mid-90s, where she was a legal correspondent. She was fired from that station for the first time when she insulted the former U.S. ambassador to France during the woman's funeral. She was brought back, only to be dismissed again when interviewing Bobby Muller, a paralyzed Vietnam veteran who was campaigning against landmines. When Muller explained that many soldiers in Vietnam were killed or maimed by landmines the U.S. had laid, Coulter responded "No wonder you guys lost." The insensitivity of that statement is staggering enough - and insulting to all veterans - but to demean Muller, who founded Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation (now called Veterans of America) and has been a tireless spokesman for veterans affairs for 30 years, is inexcusable. This from a woman who has publicly declared herself a Christian and a follower of Jesus.

Of course, she later found opportunities at Fox News and CNN. NBC's Today Show has even hosted her from time to time. In 2006, she was featured on the cover of Time magazine. All of these entities bear some responsibility for her continued presence on the national scene.

There are two things that give Ann Coulter and people like her attention: The first is the Republican party, which caters to the extreme right-wing, and keeps inviting her to speak at functions like last week's Conservative Political Action Conference (although there have been calls in the days since Friday to keep her away from now on). The second thing, and by far, the most enabling, is the corporate media's attitude that "news is entertainment."

When people like Coulter, Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity spew their ill-informed, misguided and often hate-filled rhetoric on television, it's not because the news organizations are trying to bring audiences different sides to political issues. It's because they know the Coulters and O'Reillys and Hannitys will say outrageous things that are out-of-step with mainstream viewers. They want viewers to pause in front of the TV and ask "What did she just say?" and then sit down and observe every train-wreck minute of it. (I hesitate to add any left-wing names to the list of people saying outrageous things on television - not because left-wing folks don't say outrageous things, but because they are rarely, if ever, invited on the Crossfires and Hardballs. All of which has the effect of shifting the whole debate to right, but that's another matter.)

Coulter's an attention-seeker, like the bully in the schoolyard who has to get in everyone's face and say the most repugnant things he or she can say. But she's proven that she'll say anything to get attention and to peddle her books -- like when she took to the airwaves last year to promote her latest and knew she'd get everyone's attention by calling the 9/11 widows "self-obsessed women... who enjoy their husbands' deaths." Hurt entire families that lost a loved one? Pervert historical facts? Offend the national consensus? Who cares! She's got books to sell!

Having no shame and saying anything to get attention makes her a media whore. Not having anything substantive to say makes Ann Coulter a phony. She only offers hate and ignorance. Is this really who the Republicans and conservatives want representing them?

If not, the time to say so is now.

More info: News as Entertainment and Entertainment as News

Rightwing Nuthouse: Ann Coulter - Conservative Lout

Ann Coulter: Bitch Goddess

Bring 'Em Home, Joe

2007-02-27T18:58:00.000-05:00

Forty years ago, it seemed the Vietnam War was the greatest malfeasance of government in America's history. Then Watergate happened. That was followed by Iran-Contra, which saw branches of government openly lying to pursue illegal policy objectives. Now comes what surely must be the heavyweight champion of government malfeasance: The war in Iraq.

Not surprisingly, a new poll shows a majority of Americans favor setting a deadline to bring troops home from Iraq, while an even larger majority oppose President Bush's plan to send more troops to the warzone. Meanwhile, another new survey of international relations scholars finds 89% in agreement that the war in Iraq will result in decreased national security for Americans. Polls taken during those previous debacles in American history showed similar sentiments. So why is public opinion so rarely heeded in decisions that affect not only the direction of the country and its relations with other nations, but the lives of America's sons and daughters, brothers and sisters? How representative is a government that doesn't represent the will of the people?

This time around, blame Joe Lieberman.

It's no secret that Lieberman is the lynchpin in the Democrats' control of the Senate and if Lieberman chooses to betray them, the Republicans regain control and hope of changing course in Iraq is lost. Therefore, the Democrats have one hand tied behind their back. They can't act on the popular support for bringing the troops home and ending U.S. involvement in the war, because they have to somehow appease Lieberman, who lost the Democratic nomination in his own state, due to his dedication to President Bush's alleged plan for Iraq.

In an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal on Monday, Lieberman mentioned that General Petraeus, new commander of the forces in Iraq, expects to be able to assess whether the escalated force is achieving its goals by the end of the summer. Lieberman wants a "truce" between the parties on Iraq until then. What he really means is that he wants Democrats - in defiance of public opinion and popular support - to stop pressuring him and other Senate leaders to come up with an alternative before September. In a profile this month in The New Yorker, Jeffrey Goldberg writes that Lieberman feels he owes the Democrats nothing, and suggests that a big reason why cutting off funds for the war is not on the table is because that would push Lieberman over the edge and make him switch parties.

What if autumn comes and no progress has been made? The Bush administration will certainly spin the situation to tell the public that some goals have been achieved. Will they, and General Petraeus, ask for more time and more patience (which means, undoubtedly, more lives lost)? Or will Joe Lieberman have the courage to step up and say "We gave this a chance and it didn't work. Now let's listen to the people and bring them home"?

If it turns out to be the case that Congress must wait another six months to effectively even make an attempt to turn things around because Lieberman is holding control of the Senate hostage, then the lives of everyone lost in that time are on his hands. Lieberman's excess of pride and feelings of personal vengeance come at the cost of delaying the democratic process and the irreparable harm that will likely come to many families on all sides of this war.

More info: Inside the Ivory Tower

Majority in Poll Favor Deadline For Iraq Pullout

Lieberman Carves Increasingly Isolated Path

Don't Believe the Right-Wing Media

2007-02-02T21:07:00.000-05:00

Barack Obama has the right idea. According to The Sleuth, a Washington Post.com column, Senator Obama is "freezing out" reporters from Fox News, the network which unapologeticly aired the right-wing smear against him in the last week. Since the incident - which right-wingers have attempted to blame on Hillary Clinton's campaign, in an effort to smear two Democratic candidates at once - Obama has given interviews to nearly every other major broadcast news channel, except Fox.

Obama's not the only one being attacked. Former Senator John Edwards is fielding questions on the campaign trail about his residence in Chapel Hill, N.C., and whether it is "too nice" for someone who is talking about poverty issues. The absurdity of such an attack shows how ruthless - or desperate - the right-wing is to take the public's attention off the actual issues.

Even what were once thought of as traditional news sources are being overcome by the right-wing propagandists. ABC News, which is owned by the Walt Disney Company, recently hired right-wing talk-show personality Glenn Beck to be a regular commentor on Good Morning America. Several Muslim groups have complained to ABC that because Beck has demonstrated a bias against Arabs, he should not be included in their programming.

ABC's senior news correspondent Jake Tapper recently used quotes from the defender of the right-wing faith Rush Limbaugh to augment a story about the racial implications of Joe Biden's comments on his fellow Democratic presidential candidates. Limbaugh is someone who is known for making racially insensitive comments, so why would ABC choose to reference him? What could they have expected him to say?

Last week, Tapper questioned the authenticity of Democratic candidates, but not Republican candidates. The reporter has a history of favoring Republicans and questioning the integrity of Democrats in his reporting. It's sad to see the former home of a fine journalist like Peter Jennings become a forum for Republican propaganda.

On Fox News recently, smug right-wing poster boy Sean Hannity aired scenes that were cut from the ABC telefilm Path to 9/11 which were removed from the original broadcast because of complaints that they portrayed events that never happened. That didn't stop Hannity from telling viewers he was going to present "both sides." Presumably, he meant fact and fiction, along it remains to be seen how many actual facts were not obscured by Hannity.

Fox News was created by Roger Ailes, who was a paid political consultant for the Republicans in the 1970s, 1980s, and the early 1990s. Fox has had an unapologetic conservative emphasis from the beginning, despite its corporate slogan of being "fair and balanced." It was owner Rupert Murdoch's contention that the news media was "liberal" and he and Ailes intended Fox to offset that perceived imbalance. In fact, substantial research has investigated this, and concluded that there is no liberal bias in media. But conservatives persist in saying there is, which is a convenient way for right-wing extremists to get their opinions heard, and more dangerously, have their skew with the news.

Here is the definition of propaganda: "A type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda is often deliberately misleading, using logical fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid."

In an up-to-the-minute and egregious example of the right-wing's attempt to inject propaganda into the culture, the American Enterprise Institute - a right wing think tank funded by the likes of companies like Exxon Mobil - is offering scientists and economists $10,000 to dispute the United Nations' climate change report (referenced below). The Institute is looking for articles that cast doubt on the U.N. report's findings. You can be sure that if anyone takes the bait, the right-wing media will report on it, since groups like AEI and the Heritage Foundation often place people in the editorial staffs of news organizations. Nothing less than life continuing on the planet is at stake, and the right-wing wants to cast doubt on the report -- so that companies like Exxon will not have to change their ways and stop polluting the atmosphere. It's insanity.

We won't even get into the absurdity of Fox's smugness incarnate, Bill O'Reilly, who spins more stories and twists more truths than anyone can keep track of. He'll tell you he's an "independent thinker" but then recite Republican talking points and disparage Democratic personalities. The goal of propagandists like O'Reilly and the people behind Fox is to keep telling viewers they are getting impartial news, when that's the last thing they are getting. The Nazi propagandists used the same trick back in their time.

In an op-ed piece in today's New York Times, columnist Paul Krugman paid tribute to Molly Ivins, who passed away this week, citing her 1995 column about Rush Limbaugh, in which she wrote ''Satire has historically been the weapon of powerless people aimed at the powerful. When you use satire against powerless people it is like kicking a cripple.''

It's also a powerful political tool. Be smart; don't believe the right-wing media. They exist to serve corporate and neoconservative political interests, not to serve truth.

More info: Propaganda Techniques

News Hounds: We Watch Fox So You Don't Have To

Room For One More?

2007-02-01T15:05:00.000-05:00

Just when it seems like everyone who has ever held any public office is running for president, along comes Al Gore, who has said he has no plans to run, but according to a new article in Rolling Stone, may be quietly laying the groundwork to make off with the Democratic nomination and the presidency.

Gore, who seems the favorite to win the Oscar for Best Documentary later this month for his film An Inconvenient Truth, and has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, has newfound cultural clout and respect for not only his environmental work but also his straight-talking attitude that came out before the Iraq war (and in the years since it began). In September 2002 - six months before the war even began - Gore gave a speech in which he said "The chaos in the aftermath of a military victory in Iraq could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam."

With the release of the United Nations' report on global warming on Feb. 2, Gore's profile is likely to rise even more, as the report is scheduled to support the scientific conclusions that he backed years ago. Anyone who disagrees with the scope of the global warming problem at this point is either an apologist for industry or a fool. These matters have been discussed for more than 30 years. Any leader who doesn't use their role to help correct the environmental disaster that is happening (not coming, but happening) will surely be judged as ineffectual.

The article makes a compelling case for why Gore should run, and how he could win. He'd be an alternative to the cautious middle-of-the-road campaign of Hillary Clinton, and right-wing pandering that will surely come from John McCain and Rudy Guiliani. Only Barack Obama and John Edwards - both strong candidates - could challenge Gore on his turf, but Gore has an advantage with his experience in the Senate and as vice president.

That said, fans of robust political debate should be glad that there are so many talented candidates running. With the likes of Edwards, Obama, Gore, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, and even Clinton running, one of them ought to be able to make it to the finish line and use their time in the Oval Office to make a dent in correcting the course the country has been on under the Bush administration and the extreme right-wing idealouges it represents.

At the very least, Al Gore should run because his presence alone would steer the national debate to environmental concerns that are essential to the nation's well-being.

More info: Climate Crisis.org

White House Twists Global Warming Science

The Ford Legacy

2007-01-04T20:52:00.000-05:00

While the passing of any president is cause for a showing of respect, we must be careful that in praising the deceased we don't also rewrite history for political purposes. Unfortunately, that is what has been happening with the recent death of Gerald Ford.

The only U.S. president who was not elected by the people, Ford served as president for two years. Prior to that he was vice president for under a year, replacing the scandal-plagued Spiro Agnew. Prior to that, he was a Republican member of the House of Representatives from 1949 to 1973.

Since his death, Ford has been praised as a "healer" of the nation following the Watergate scandal. His pardoning of Richard Nixon has been the subject of debate for more than 32 years, but everyone from George W. Bush to conservative columnists to Jimmy Carter have credited Ford with "moving the country forward" from Watergate. Indeed, New York Times columnist David Brooks went so far as to say the pardon was "universally celebrated."

That's a discredit to history, and to reality. The principle objection to the Nixon pardon is that, in signing the order, Ford placed the president above the law. The nation strongly suspected that Nixon was guilty of crimes and with the stroke of his pen, Ford assured that the truth would never be known and that the president would not answer for whatever he did.

(Demostrating beyond any doubt that they are political animals first and foremost, the Republicans did not take Ford's lesson in "healing" to heart when they decided to impeach Bill Clinton. It's also worth noting for historical value that Clinton's misdeeds were of a personal nature, not a political or national nature, as Nixon's were.)

Ford's legacy also includes advancing the careers of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, both of whom served in his administration. Rumsfeld initially served as Ford's Chief of Staff, and later as his Secretary of Defense - a post he filled again from 2001-2006 for George W. Bush. Cheney succeeded Rumsfeld as Ford's Chief of Staff, and later ran his failed 1976 re-election campaign. Both Cheney and Rumsfeld are credited with instigating the current war in Iraq and shaping U.S. foreign policy to where it is today.

Ford was also a member of the Warren Commission, which investigated the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The Commission's findings have been widely discredited over the years, with a majority of people believing there was some sort of conspiracy in Kennedy's murder. Ford actually altered the first draft of the report to make Kennedy's fatal injuries sound more consistent with the single-bullet (and single shooter) theory the Commission was promoting. In altering the document, Ford elevated the location of Kennedy's wound from it's true location to support the single assassin theory. The Assassination Review Board released a document in 1997 that revealed Ford's actions.

During his eight years as Minority Leader in the House, Ford clashed with President Lyndon Johnson, particularly over his Great Soceity programs and the Vietnam War. In the 1964 presidential election, Ford supported Barry Goldwater, who advocated escalating the war in the face of widespread public opposition. Republicans are still battling the Great Society, with opposition to civl rights, health care and education still being waged.

Ford's biggest sin to history, however, remains his pardon of Nixon, for which he alone is responsible. In making the president above the law, Ford created an intangible - and unsubstantiated - doctrine of presidential power that presidents such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have invoked to keep secrets from the public when it suits their political purposes.

But when you're willing to alter the findings of an assassination report, keeping secrets follows naturally.

More info: National Archives - JFK Assassination Records

Watergate.Info: The Scandal That Destroyed Nixon

Book Censors Try, Yet Again, To Restrict Ideas

2006-12-15T20:13:00.000-05:00

Once again, the Harry Potter books are under attack. This time, a mother of three elementary school children in the suburban Atlanta area has been petitioning the library to remove the books from the shelves. She says the books are "mainstreaming witchcraft in a subtle and deceptive manner." She also complains that children don't need to read about murder, greed and violence. In rejecting her petition, the Georgia Board of Education said the books encourage reading and help develop imagination and creativity. The board added that a ban on all books referring to witchcraft would end up including classics such as "Macbeth'' and ''Cinderella."

This is an old argument. Since 1999, the Potter books have been at the top of the American Library Association's list of most-protested books. The complaints come from religious groups - some of which have banned the books to their congregations - who find the subject of witchcraft in opposition to their reading of scripture. In fact, in 2001, a church in New Mexico held a bonfire in which Harry Potter books were burned, along with CDs by Eminem and copies of Walt Disney's Snow White film. "Behind that innocent face is the power of satanic darkness," said Jack Brock, the pastor of the Christ Community Church in Alamogordo, N.M. "Harry Potter is the devil and he is destroying people."

Another minister in Lewiston, Maine, wanted to burn the books, but couldn't get a permit from the city. Instead, he cut them up in public. Penecostal minister Douglas Taylor was quoted as saying "I wanted to burn the books because the Bible gives me the authority to burn magic books." This was in 2002.

Book burnings (and book desecrations) have always been around, going back at least to medieval times. In the 20th Century, the government of Nazi Germany famously burned books in massive bonfires, often accompanied by rallies of the Nazi party. In the 1960s, U.S. groups burned stacks of records by The Beatles, after John Lennon commented that rock and roll was more popular with kids than Jesus. (A statement which, even 40 years later, continues to be misunderstood.)

Religious groups are certainly entitled to believe what they will, but why do they need to see that the books are banned? What about people who don't follow their brand of fire-and-brimstone beliefs? By banning the books, they would deny an entire population access to them. So what if the books do encourage witchcraft? (We don't think they do.) Just because witchcraft may be in opposition to what some people believe doesn't mean it represents an illegal activity. People like the suburban Atlanta mother of three seem to have confused legal rights with religious doctrine. Has separation of church and state ever been taught to these folks? (Perhaps they burned the book that had that particular lesson.) As silly as much of this seems, those who would ban books, or music, or speech should be taken seriously. They could end up being successful.

The lack of a law prohibiting that which religious groups consider offensive doesn't preclude them from staying away from it, or telling their children to stay away from it. What they're really saying is that theirs is the only right and true belief system, and any opposition to it should carry the penalty of law. Their lack of understanding of the principles of American democracy is staggering.

Banning and censoring books, music, film or speech in general is a profoundly un-American activity. It's not an accident that the Constitution's prohibition on Congress making any law to restrict speech is the first amendment.

The failure to grasp this most basic principle of freedom is not surprising, given that these same groups failed to acknowledge a spoof that appeared in The Onion ("Harry Potter Books Spark Rise In Satanism Among Children," July 2000) as satire, and the article was e-mailed as proof that the Harry Potter books made children turn to Satanism. Even some would-be leaders don't get it. Just last month, former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich advocated new restrictions on speech as a tool in the "war on terror." Evidently, Gingrich believes that one can save democracy by suspending democracy.

Vigilance against ignorance is the price for an enlightened society.

More info: Harry Potter: Religious Opposition To Witchcraft Themes

A Brief History Of Banned Music In The United States

Pit Bull Politics Come Home To Bite

2006-12-08T19:15:00.000-05:00

Dick Cheney has a problem. The pit bull of American conservative politics is seeing his supporters take nasty shots at his daughter Mary, who is both openly gay and pregnant. For most people, this would be a very happy time, and we are sure the Vice President is happy for his daughter and his family. But he can't be happy that his supporters - those voters he courted and nurtured into being the Bush-Cheney base - are being so venomous about his daughter and this happy time in her life.

Take, for example, Robert Knight, from the Culture & Media Institute at the Media Research Center, who said "I think it's tragic that a child has been conceived with the express purpose of denying it a father." Knight also said Cheney and her partner Heather Poe were "shortchanging" the child. The couple lives in Virginia, which won't recognize Poe's rights as a spouse or a partner.

Focus On The Family, perhaps the most venomous of all the so-called Christian rights' groups, issued a statement that criticized all same-sex couples who raise children. Republicans want a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and conservatives would oppose Cheney and Poe getting hitched. Forget marriage, they don't even want them to raise a child.

But why? There's no evidence that children brought up by same-sex couples fare any worse or any better than those in different-sex households (see: American Psychological Association study). The issue for these folks is cultural - they object to homosexuality and changes to the culture of child rearing they know and understand. Consistent with the Bush administration's practice (not pledge) of being dividers, not uniters, Cheney and the politicians with whom he aligns himself have repeatedly spoken in agreement with the issues that the Christian right promotes.

The Christian right should realize they're being suckered. The Bush administration doesn't care about them, and the Republican Party just wants their votes. In mid-October, a former official with Bush's Office of Faith-Based Initiatives published a book, Tempting Faith, that disclosed that while national Christian leaders get public support from Bush and his Republican allies, they are called "nuts" behind the scenes and only used in efforts to mobilize voters. Anyone who examines the legislative objectives of Bush and the Republicans can see that their true concern is with giving aid to the objectives of corporations and the very rich. If they were truly religious people, wouldn't they have learned the lesson about the camel and the eye of the needle?

Still, Republicans are unlikely to admit the facade they've been using for so long and support gay rights, especially the right of gay marriage - not when fostering opposition to that worked so well in bringing out the votes of the intolerant in 2004. That's consistent with the history of conservatism. As various times in the life of the American politics, conservatives have opposed the right of women to vote, the right of black citizens to vote, Social Security and the New Deal, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the creation of Medicare, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act, among others. None of these measures - which benefit the people and democracy - are consistent with the wishes of the business constituency or the religious voters that the Republican party currently needs to mobilize to get elected.

What's the problem with gay marriage? By what authority do conservative groups dictate who can love whom in society? They will claim by the authority of God, but religious text has been the subject of debate for thousands of years, and besides, with a separation of church and state, those who don't choose to follow a particular religion should be able to have the rights that are due them under the law. It is not the place of law to codify any religion, nor to measure what kind of love between two people is more worthy of recognition than another.

Ten years ago, in an interview with The Advocate, Bruce Springsteen said of the right to marry:

It does matter. It's very different than just living together. First of all, stepping up publicly- which is what you do: You get your license, you do all the social rituals- is a part of your place in society and in some way part of society's acceptance of you. [...] Coming out and saying whom you love, how you feel about them, in a public way was very, very important. Those are the threads of society; that's how we all live together in some fashion. There is no reason I can see why gays and lesbians shouldn't get married. It is important because those are the things that bring you in and make you feel a part of the social fabric.

Excluding people from the social fabric is exactly what this is all about to the conservatives. Republicans made a point of showcasing themselves as defenders of "family values." How does preventing gays from marrying or raising children value the family?

More info: Cheney's Grandchild Will Have Two Mommies

Freedom To Marry

Moving To The Moon

2006-12-06T19:40:00.000-05:00

In the 1970s, television screens showed images of "Moon Base Alpha," a virtual colony on the surface of the moon, on the British-produced "Space: 1999." They might have gotten the date wrong.

Yesterday, in the latest example of making science fiction into science fact, it was reported that NASA plans to establish a permanent base on the moon by 2024, four years after the agency plans to resume manned trips there. For more than 50 years, a moon base has been the stuff of imagination in books and movies, and of scientific conjecture. NASA's plan is to equip the base with several lunar rovers to explore the surface of the moon.

The base would be set at either of the moon's poles, which have access to more sunshine than the rest of the surface, and which will better serve the base's solar-powered energy system.

Of course, the question is what to make of all this? On the one hand, is it really justifiable to spend the kind of money that space exploration requires when we have people without enough to eat or without healthcare? (Whether money can solve those problems is another matter, and it seems unlikely that money alone would be sufficient to break through the corrupt governments that block humanitarian aid in some parts of the world, or to solve the problem of corrupt corporations that gouge people for healthcare coverage and pharmaceuticals.)

Once President Kennedy set the goal for lunar exploration, Americans spent a good deal of the next decade and a half with a hopeful purpose. The space race had a positive influence on the culture, and saw people rooting for new achievements in science rather than rooting for their side in the latest global conflict. (How much more positive an influence that era would have seen but for the Vietnam War is something we'll never know.) Kennedy said of the plan to reach the moon, "new hopes for knowledge and peace are there." Sadly, those were never realized.

Significantly, however, the discoveries of the space age fueled many industries for the next several decades. Cell phones, iPods, personal computers and microwave ovens all owe a debt to the experimentation and achievements that came from that period. Even architecture was more bold and hopeful, as Googie design utilized lines and angles -- and imagination -- that soared. A return to the moon, and the realization of fifty years of thoughtful design in films, drawings, even toys, could be the catalyst for a new era of a hopeful, positive influence in the culture. All of that assumes that the intentions of international cooperation for the base are genuine. Using space for military purposes, as Donald Rumsfeld reportedly intended when he became Secretary of Defense, would be a profound negative, and a betrayal of hope.

In 1968, as violence at home and abroad reached a peak, and as the divide among Americans and among older and younger generations grew wider, astronauts from the Apollo 8 mission to the moon sent back a picture of earth, as illuminated by the sun and seen from the surface of the moon. The picture has been called one of the "most influential environmental photographs ever taken," and as an anonymous telegram to astronaut Frank Borman put it, "saved 1968" in its depiction of a finite planet, a small part of the vast universe.

That's the kind of thing the world could use right now.

More info: Wikipedia: Apollo 8

Manned Moon Base Within 20 Years

'The Great Wealth Transfer'

2006-12-02T07:42:00.000-05:00

"The Great Wealth Transfer" is essential reading in the new issue of Rolling Stone. Paul Krugman, New York Times columnist and Princeton professor, describes how what appear to be good economic numbers aren't good for the vast majority of people in the U.S.

The blame, he says, goes to corporate wealth - which is not shared with workers, and is instead lavished on corporate executives at historically astronomical rates - and the politics of conservatism - which make way for tax cuts to the wealthiest among us, and also work to weaken labor unions and keep down the minimum wage. The assault on unions and the minimum wage began, Krugman writes, in the 1970s, but kicked into high gear when Ronald Reagan became president in 1980. The situation got only slightly better in the 1990s, but the current Bush regime has gone beyond what was seen in the Reagan years.

All of this has brought American society back to a time before the New Deal when the very rich lived far apart from the rest of the nation. Indeed, that seems to be the conservatives' goal, and it has been for some time. In the 19th Century, the distribution of money and power was far different from what we came to know in the 20th Century, and if the conservatives have their way, the nation will continue on a path like that before the New Deal, labor unions, government oversight of business and so on. Rather than creating a democracy in which all classes of people have a chance to share in the nation's wealth, the conservatives and those corporate leaders whom they truly represent would prefer a system more akin to feudalism.

If for no other reason, this is why it is important to vote against these kinds of interests and support more progressive candidates. It's also why it is important to support, and if possible join, a labor union. Here is an iron-clad guarantee: Corporate America does not have your - or the public's - best interests at heart.

["The Great Wealth Transfer" can be read online here. The article is also in the Dec. 14 issue of Rolling Stone.]

More info: New Deal Network

The Right's Grand Ambition: Rolling Back the 20th Century

The War on Peace

2006-11-30T14:26:00.000-05:00

A couple in Colorado was threatened with daily fines from their homeowners association for displaying a holiday wreath shaped like a peace symbol. The fines were dropped and the three-member board resigned, but it's a staggering statement of the world we live in when a gesture of peace can be met with so much hostility.

Residents apparently complained to the association that the peace symbol was "politically divisive." One person even complained that it represented the devil. Has this become such a nation of sheep that a mere display representing tranqulity brings about calls of divisiveness? Must we again get explain that those who don't support the war are not being unpatriotic?

Homeowners associations are notoriously undemocratic. These are the groups that decree that homes in places like gated communities must look the same, with no special ornamentation on the lawns or windows. It must raise the blood pressure of these associations when someone has an individual thought.

Let's hope no one in these communities is planning on raising doves.

More info: The X-Files: Arcadia

Gated Communities More Popular, And Not Just For The Rich

The Draft: Mr. Rangel's Dangerous Game

2006-11-29T17:22:00.000-05:00

Ten days ago, Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) made a splash when he suggested that the United States reinstate the draft. He argued that having a draft - and thus, more of a shared sacrifice among all Americans - would make politicians like President Bush and outgoing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld more responsive to the people and more likely to avoid unecessary conflicts. Really, what Rangel is saying is that Bush would have been less likely to start a war in Iraq if he felt the political consequences of doing so would have hurt him more.

While I can see what Rangel is trying to do -- and it might work once to stop a president from going to war -- I don't think Bush & Co. would have hesitated if they had a draft. Everything in their history and their performance in office suggests that they'd see more soldiers as more resources. If there was a draft in place, it is possible they would have waited until after the 2004 election to go into Iraq, but it seems they still would have done it. Moreover, with a larger force, they may have attacked other countries too, as the hawks in the administration have suggested over the years, implying that a military solution was what was needed in Iran and Syria, among other nations.

Having a draft didn't stop the Johnson and Nixon administrations from continuing to escalate in Vietnam. Why should we believe this president would be more responsible with more lives?

Lastly, there is objection to the draft in principle. A truly free society doesn't conscript its people into service. We should honor those who choose to serve, and we should see to it that they are treated fairly and responsibly, and not thrust into harm's way unnecessarily.

So while we thank Mr. Rangel for the effort to hold the Bush administration politically accountable, we reject the idea of playing Russian roulette with our brothers and sisters and sons and daughters. It's a dangerous game Mr. Rangel is playing.

More info: Pelosi Says 'No' To Draft Legislation

College Students Sound Off On Military Draft

The First Post

2006-11-28T15:55:00.000-05:00

Welcome to the first post of the Uncle Sam Wants You blog. A couple of things: First, the title comes from the 1984 song by Little Steven titled "Vote," which was an attempt to encourage people to vote Ronald Reagan out of office. We agreed with that sentiment, and find the song still relevant in 2006 (when, thankfully, it seems to have been heeded, albeit 22 years later).

You will find no romanticizing of the Reagan administration here. Having lived through that time, it is our firm belief that the era and breed of conservatism that came to power in 1980 has been a disaster for the country and the vast majority of its people. That's a conclusion reached by decades-long analysis of issues and events. We're not just rooting for a favorite team here (and you will find we disagree with the Democrats on some matters as well - see above), we're instead concerned with what is best for the country, based on our shared history, the principles of freedom and democracy and the needs of the many.

Join us as we examine our place in history and attempt to make sense of the events of our time.