BlueNovember.Org

If I had the floor at the auto rescue talks

2008-11-30T17:44:00.000-08:00

BY MITCH ALBOM • FREE PRESS COLUMNIST • November 23, 2008

OK. It's a fantasy. But if I had five minutes in front of Congress last week, here's what I would've said:

Good morning. First of all, before you ask, I flew commercial. Northwest Airlines. Had a bag of peanuts for breakfast. Of course, that's Northwest, which just merged with Delta, a merger you, our government, approved -- and one which, inevitably, will lead to big bonuses for their executives and higher costs for us. You seem to be OK with that kind of business.

Which makes me wonder why you're so against our kind of business? The kind we do in Detroit. The kind that gets your fingernails dirty. The kind where people use hammers and drills, not keystrokes. The kind where you get paid for making something, not moving money around a board and skimming a percentage.
You've already given hundreds of billions to banking and finance companies -- and hardly demanded anything. Yet you balk at the very idea of giving $25 billion to the Detroit Three. Heck, you shoveled that exact amount to Citigroup -- $25 billion -- just weeks ago, and that place is about to crumble anyhow.

Does the word "hypocrisy" ring a bell?

Protecting the home turf?

Sen. Shelby. Yes. You. From Alabama. You've been awfully vocal. You called the Detroit Three's leaders "failures." You said loans to them would be "wasted money." You said they should go bankrupt and "let the market work."

Why weren't you equally vocal when your state handed out hundreds of millions in tax breaks to Mercedes-Benz, Hyundai, Honda and others to open plants there? Why not "let the market work"? Or is it better for Alabama if the Detroit Three fold so that the foreign companies -- in your state -- can produce more?
Way to think of the nation first, senator.

And you, Sen. Kyl of Arizona. You told reporters: "There's no reason to throw money at a problem that's not going to get solved."

That's funny, coming from such an avid supporter of the Iraq war. You've been gung ho on that for years. So how could you just sit there when, according to the New York Times, an Iraqi former chief investigator told Congress that $13 billion in U.S. reconstruction funds "had been lost to fraud, embezzlement, theft and waste" by the Iraqi government?

That's 13 billion, senator. More than half of what the auto industry is asking for. Thirteen billion? Gone?

Wasted?

Where was your "throwing money at a problem that's not going to get solved" speech then?
Watching over the bankers?

And the rest of you lawmakers. The ones who insist the auto companies show you a plan before you help them. You've already handed over $150 billion of our tax money to AIG. How come you never demanded a plan from it? How come when AIG blew through its first $85 billion, you quickly gave it more? The car companies may be losing money, but they can explain it: They're paying workers too much and selling cars for too little.
AIG lost hundred of billions in credit default swaps -- which no one can explain and which make nothing, produce nothing, employ no one and are essentially bets on failure.
And you don't demand a paragraph from it?

Look. Nobody is saying the auto business is healthy. Its unions need to adjust more. Its models and dealerships need to shrink. Its top executives have to downsize their own importance.

But this is a business that has been around for more than a century. And some of its problems are because of that, because people get used to certain wages, manufacturers get used to certain business models. It's easy to point to foreign carmakers with tax breaks, no union costs and a cleaner slate -- not to mention help from their home countries -- and say "be more like them."

But if you let us die, you let our national spine collapse. America can't be a country of lawyers and financial analysts. We have to manufacture. We need that infrastructure. We need those jobs. We need that security. Have you forgotten who built equipment during the world wars?
Besides, let's be honest. When it comes to blowing budgets, being grossly inefficient and wallowing in debt, who's better than Congress?

So who are you to lecture anyone on how to run a business?

Ask fair questions. Demand accountability. But knock it off with the holier than thou crap, OK? You got us into this mess with greed, a bad Fed policy and too little regulation. Don't kick our tires to make yourselves look better.

UnAmerican?

2008-11-02T15:02:00.000-08:00

I was never much taken with John McCain. Even in 2000, when he made a good run against Bush in the Republican primaries and was horribly smeared by the Rove machine, he still seemed, insofar as actual policy was concerned, just another Republican, with enough charm to make him seem slightly different to the easily fooled media. Then during the years of the Bush regime, he started becoming even more conventional, kissing Jerry Falwell's ass (see here), and sucking up to Bush himself. But I was not prepared for the complete abdication of principle that has characterized his campaign for the presidency, especially in recent weeks.

The ads now running for the McCain-Palin ticket in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, and a handful of other swing states are beyond contempt, and they insure that John McCain will be remembered as one of the great hypocrites of our age (for a sample, see here).

All the polls suggest that these ads are having little effect on the election. They are, by all reasonable assessment, not convincing independents and late deciders to move to McCain. But I fear that they will have another impact, one that is likely to poison further, if that's even possible, the nature of culture and politics in America. Because McCain and Palin have opted to take the low road, millions of Americans are convinced that Barack Obama is a socialist, a threat to families, a friend of terrorists, even the anti-Christ. Obama will be facing monumental problems when he takes office: unemployment, foreclosures, the world financial crisis, two wars going badly, the imminent apocalypse of climate change--the Bush years have left our country in such a shambles that the list of problems is more or less endless.

For McCain and Palin to spew out such venom as they have the last few weeks makes Obama's challenges more difficult. Millions of ordinary Americans will live in fear that Obama is about to loose the Muslim hordes on them, at the same time that he sends their children off to a madrassa. McCain and Palin are hurting our country terribly. Their lies and innuendo are polarizing, divisive, and as mean spirited as anything we have ever seen in our political culture. John McCain knows that Obama is not a socialist or a terrorist, yet he traffics in slander and threat, thus, in fact, actually terrorizing those Americans susceptible to his vile smears.

McCain's motto is "Country First," yet he clearly is putting his own ambition ahead of country. By continuing to pour out this filth, by filling the airwaves of Pennsylvania and Ohio with this garbage, McCain, once a war hero, is committing nothing short of treason.

Vote YES on Proposal 2

2008-10-21T19:24:00.000-07:00

We urge you to say Yes 2 Proposal 2 and Yes 2 Cures this November 4th.

Proposal 2 has one purpose: to allow researchers the ability to find the cures and therapies that millions of Michigan families desperately need right now.

The procedure required to conduct vital stem cell research is criminalized in Michigan, even though it holds the greatest hope of cures for deadly and debilitating diseases and conditions including Parkinson's, diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer's, sickle cell anemia, MS, Cerebral Palsy and spinal cord injuries.

It's in our grasp: we can find cures for the diseases that affect our friends, family, co-workers and neighbors. It's the right thing to do for Michigan families who deserve to have hope, and need our help.
If you want to learn more, visit curemichigan.com for facts and details.

Tell everyone you know to Vote YES on Proposal 2 November 4th!

Joe Biden in St. Clair Shores

2008-09-17T21:15:00.000-07:00

"In John McCain’s America, we wouldn’t guarantee that more of energy would come from wind, solar, and other renewables. The minimum wage would still be $3.35 an hour. There would have been 100,000 fewer police on the beat. There would have been no national domestic violence hotline for the 1.5 million women who were in crisis and needed somewhere to turn."

Joe Biden was eloquent in St. Clair Shores on Monday, exposing the destructive policies of John McCain and advocating for the change we need. He and Barack Obama know that we're all in the same boat, and they want to steer us in the right direction!

Check out the complete speech at

http://thepage.time.com/prepared-remarks-of-biden-in-saint-clair-shores-michigan/

The Plan to Renew the Promise

2008-09-15T18:01:00.000-07:00

Published this month, Change We Can Believe In: Barack Obama's Plan to Renew America's Promise is a book that lives up to its title.

Following a foreword by Obama and an introduction entitled "Hope for America," four chapters in "Part I: The Plan" describe what his administration would work to accomplish: "Reviving Our Economy: Strengthening the Middle Class," "Investing in Our Prosperity: Creating Our Economic Future," "Rebuilding America's Leadership: Restoring Our Place in the World," and "Perfecting Our Union: Embracing America's Values."

The book's second part, "The Call," features seven speeches by Obama, from his "Declaration of Candidacy" in Springfield, Illinois in February 2007 to his July 2008 address in Berlin, "A World That Stands as One."

The four chapters in "The Plan" set forth a catalog of policy proposals and reforms that are almost dizzying in their number and variety. Each one is mentioned only briefly and is sure to tantalize readers who feel passionate about it. The seven speeches, elegant and energizing, offer an inspiring counterpoint to this program for action.

While the speeches are splendid, it was the contents of "The Plan" that had an abiding effect on me, an effect greater than the sum of its parts. For while the federal government under any administration engages in numerous activities, what the Obama campaign advocates is something more than tremendous variety. It proposes governance that is bold and beneficial, confident and humane. In sharp contrast to the dysfunctional, negligent administration of the last two terms, Obama communicates something exciting, a commitment to leadership not dominated by secrecy and fear and polarization, but one that respects and trusts the American people. Barack Obama believes that citizens and government can enter into a powerful partnership yet again for the benefit of the nation and the world.

"The Plan" is conservative in the best sense because it recalls moments in American history when ordinary people took risks on behalf of freedom and justice. It is also a progressive manifesto, inviting the America of today not to surrender to complacency or despair, but to walk with determination into a bright future of increased equality and opportunity for all people.

Liberals, Be Proud!

2008-09-10T04:18:00.000-07:00

Here, verbatim, is Bob Herbert's column from the New York Times earlier this week. All liberals should read it carefully. It might help some of those people who call themselves conservative see things a little clearer, too.

Hold Your Heads Up

By BOB HERBERT

Ignorance must really be bliss. How else, over so many years, could the G.O.P. get away with ridiculing all things liberal?

Troglodytes on the right are no respecters of reality. They say the most absurd things and hardly anyone calls them on it. Evolution? Don’t you believe it. Global warming? A figment of the liberal imagination.

Liberals have been so cowed by the pummeling they’ve taken from the right that they’ve tried to shed their own identity, calling themselves everything but liberal and hoping to pass conservative muster by presenting themselves as hyper-religious and lifelong lovers of rifles, handguns, whatever.

So there was Hillary Clinton, of all people, sponsoring legislation to ban flag-burning; and Barack Obama, who once opposed the death penalty, morphing into someone who not only supports it, but supports it in cases that don’t even involve a homicide.

Anyway, the Republicans were back at it last week at their convention. Mitt Romney wasn’t content to insist that he personally knows that “liberals don’t have a clue.” He complained loudly that the federal government right now is too liberal.

“We need change, all right,” he said. “Change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington.”

Why liberals don’t stand up to this garbage, I don’t know. Without the extraordinary contribution of liberals — from the mightiest presidents to the most unheralded protesters and organizers — the United States would be a much, much worse place than it is today.

There would be absolutely no chance that a Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin could make a credible run for the highest offices in the land. Conservatives would never have allowed it.

Civil rights? Women’s rights? Liberals went to the mat for them time and again against ugly, vicious and sometimes murderous opposition. They should be forever proud.

The liberals who didn’t have a clue gave us Social Security and unemployment insurance, both of which were contained in the original Social Security Act. Most conservatives despised the very idea of this assistance to struggling Americans. Republicans hated Social Security, but most were afraid to give full throat to their opposition in public at the height of the Depression.

“In the procedural motions that preceded final passage,” wrote historian Jean Edward Smith in his biography, “FDR,” “House Republicans voted almost unanimously against Social Security. But when the final up-or-down vote came on April 19 [1935], fewer than half were prepared to go on record against.”

Liberals who didn’t have a clue gave us Medicare and Medicaid. Quick, how many of you (or your loved ones) are benefiting mightily from these programs, even as we speak. The idea that Republicans are proud of Ronald Reagan, who saw Medicare as “the advance wave of socialism,” while Democrats are ashamed of Lyndon Johnson, whose legislative genius made this wonderful, life-saving concept real, is insane.

When Johnson signed the Medicare bill into law in the presence of Harry Truman in 1965, he said: “No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine.”

Reagan, on the other hand, according to Johnson biographer Robert Dallek, “predicted that Medicare would compel Americans to spend their ‘sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was like in America when men were free.’ ”

Scary.

Without the many great and noble deeds of liberals over the past six or seven decades, America would hardly be recognizable to today’s young people. Liberals (including liberal Republicans, who have since been mostly drummed out of the party) ended legalized racial segregation and gender discrimination.

Humiliation imposed by custom and enforced by government had been the order of the day for blacks and women before men and women of good will and liberal persuasion stepped up their long (and not yet ended) campaign to change things. Liberals gave this country Head Start and legal services and the food stamp program. They fought for cleaner air (there was a time when you could barely see Los Angeles) and cleaner water (there were rivers in America that actually caught fire).

Liberals. Your food is safer because of them, and so are your children’s clothing and toys. Your workplace is safer. Your ability (or that of your children or grandchildren) to go to college is manifestly easier.

It would take volumes to adequately cover the enhancements to the quality of American lives and the greatness of American society that have been wrought by people whose politics were unabashedly liberal. It is a track record that deserves to be celebrated, not ridiculed or scorned.

Self-hatred is a terrible thing. Just ask that arch-conservative Clarence Thomas.

Liberals need to get over it.

Heroes, Kings, and Old Men

2008-08-29T11:20:00.000-07:00

I must admit I feel sorry for John McCain. It's not because he may lose the election for president. It has to do with something else, something that will remain with him whether he loses or wins. The problem I see is one that is writ large in his life, but appears also in the lives of many men who do not appear in the news.

McCain refers very often to his military service and to his time as a prisoner of war. Lots of other people talk about this time in his life, and even his opponents refer to him as a hero. His later decades, including several terms in the Senate, appear almost as an anti-climax.

Perhaps the young McCain was a hero. Certainly on behalf of his country he suffered in ways that no one should have to suffer. But heroism is for young men, perhaps also for those in middle age. McCain is now past seventy, and as Aaron Kipnis has said, "There are no old heroes--only wise or foolish old men." Someone McCain's age can be a credible senator or president. But by that point in life, heroism needs to give place to something greater. The hero must become the wise old man. If not, then he turns into the foolish old man, somebody stuck in the past.

John McCain is the third of that name. His grandfather was an admiral, and his father was also. The current John McCain never became an admiral. I wonder how much he is haunted by this. I wonder also how much he is haunted by having served his country inside an enemy prison rather than in a position of high command. That was a hell of a hard way to become a hero.

If these are McCain's preoccupations, then he has company. Many men have difficulty letting go of heroic expectations about themselves or even heroic realities. When I was in college, I met a World War II veteran, a relative of one of my friends. Within the first ten minutes of our acquaintance, he was reciting with gusto stories of the dangers he had faced in that war thirty years earlier. It was as though nothing had happened since then. Whether a man is acknowledged as a hero or not, he may not learn that there is life afterward, and that his final decades are inevitably characterized by either foolishness or wisdom.

Another stage can occur between the young hero and the old man. That is the stage of the king. Kings can reign well or poorly. They can preside over territories large or small: not only entire nations, but businesses, classrooms, and families. Richard Rohr has said that a man is rarely in touch with his king energy before the age of fifty. When there's a true king in the room, you know it. He's robust, confident but not arrogant, and embodies a zest for life. The true king makes others feel safe and appreciated.

I've learned a lot about John McCain in recent months, as many Americans have, and I find little or no evidence of positive king energy in what he does. People who know him well, even some who share his political perspective, find him hard to get along with. The greatest leaders add luster even to high office. Others fulfill their roles with dignity and competence. The record suggests that McCain does not belong to either of these groups.

Barack Obama is still in his forties, yet he strikes me as a man moving from hero to king. His mother, his father, his stepfather, and his grandfather are all gone, and he has separated himself from his spiritual father, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Becoming a good king often involves saying farewell to parental figures and leaving mentors behind. The end of these relationships brings grief and sometimes conflict. Obama's words and actions demonstrate that he has negotiated these transitions in a thoughtful way. He lives in the present moment, not the past.

I feel sorry for John McCain, but I will not vote for him. On the other hand, Barack Obama makes me hopeful. Whether or not he's elected president, Obama will serve our country with positive king energy and in time become an old man of uncommon wisdom.

VoterPalooza: Issues and Candidates Forum

2008-08-18T10:25:00.000-07:00

Saturday, September 20, 2008
2:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M.
Municipal Office CenterPort Huron, Michigan

VoterPalooza: An issues and candidates forum

Statement of Purpose

On September 20, 2008, at the Municipal Office Center in Port Huron, BlueNovember.Org will sponsor in VoterPalooza, an issues and candidates forum focusing on the major themes of the 2008 election. VoterPalooza will provide voters a chance to hear advocates from four political parties as well as candidates from four local races. We are inviting representatives of the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian and Green parties to participate.

From the parties' advocates, voters will hear the parties' positions on the two overarching issues of the campaign: the economy and national security. From candidates, voters will get side-by-side comparison.

With VoterPalooza, we hope to stimulate voter interest and encourage people to use their right to vote in this important election, perhaps the most important presidential contest in generations. The right to vote for our national and local leadership is a fundamental feature of our American citizenship.

By providing voters information about Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, and Green party ideas for how best to stabilize our economy and keep us secure in a troubled world, and by focusing attention on four local races. By sponsoring this event, BlueNovemner.Org hopes to generate excitement about the democratic process and increase voter turnout in St. Clair County.

The Company You Keep

2008-08-07T12:37:00.000-07:00

John McCain graduated from the United States Naval Academy near the bottom of his class: 894 out of 899. This sad performance should not in itself disqualify him for the presidency. What should disqualify him are attitudes that put him at the bottom of the class in our nation's continuing education about decency and justice.

Social change sometimes takes the form of a bell curve. The change starts with a small number of people, then larger numbers are won over. In time the majority of people endorse the change. Those who do not become an increasingly smaller part of the population until opposition to the change practically disappears. John McCain keeps company with people whose views on race and justice are dangerously outdated. They--and he, so it seems--are at the bottom of the class on these ethical issues.

Irwin A. Tang's new book, Gook: John McCain's Racism and Why It Matters (The it Works / Paul Revere Press) provides evidence for this. Tang reveals connections between American militarism and racist attitudes throughout the last century. He helps those of us who are not Asian American sense the racism that people of Asian background have encountered and still encounter in the United States.

Tang is also helpful when he points to the ugly attitudes and actions of specific people who support John McCain and are supported by him. In response to public exposure, McCain has banished several such people from official roles in his campaign, but the fact remains that he was happy to have them on board before the political price became too great. What role they continue to play in his career remains unclear.

One of these folks is Richard Quinn, a long-time associate of McCain who serves as a paid strategist for him in South Carolina. Tang identifies Quinn as "a life-long white supremacist" who has served as editor-in-chief of The Southern Partisan, "an anti-black, anti-immigrant, anti-gay journal" with ties with the Holocaust-denial movement. This magazine described the first Grand Wizard of the KKK as a "superhero," Nelson Mandela as a "bad egg," and feminism as "a revolt against God." Quinn was also McCain's chief strategist in South Carolina during his 2000 presidential campaign. The state campaign was headquartered in a building owned by Quinn that also housed the offices of The Southern Partisan.

Another of McCain's pals is George Wallace, Jr., son of the late governor of Alabama. Wallace ran in the 2005 Republican primary for lieutenant governor. In June of that year, his speech opened the national convention of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), a major white supremacist group he had addressed on other occasions. Wallace lost the primary, but this was due to no lack of effort on the part of John McCain, who endorsed him and arranged a fundraiser on his behalf. Irwin Tang notes that of the numerous Republicans running for office in recent years, Wallace may be the only one to attend hate group meetings in full public view. Yet McCain went out of his way to support him. Why was this primary of such importance to a man wanting to become president?

John McCain hired a number of former lobbyists to help with his current presidential campaign. One of them was Charlie Black, who lobbied for such notorious dictators as Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, Mohamed Siad Barre of Somalia, and Mobuto Sese Seko of Zaire, each of whom was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people in their own countries. Black was also handsomely paid for lobbying on behalf of Jonas Savimbi's Angolan guerilla group UNITA. One Africa specialist has described Savimbi as unique in the history of the continent "because of the degree of suffering he caused without showing any remorse."

Let's not overlook this pair of former Washington lobbyists: Doug Davenport and Doug Goodyear. Davenport was hired as McCain's campaign manager in the mid-Atlantic states, Goodyear as McCain's convention CEO. They lobbied on behalf of the military junta that rules Myanmar, formerly Burma. This junta has killed its enemies and terrorized entire ethnic groups in their country. They have kept Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest. And when Cyclone Nargis ravished their country, they prevented food and medicine from reaching millions of people in crisis.

You're known by the company you keep. The company kept by a presidential candidate includes people who will be rewarded with power and position should that candidate be elected.

What about Other Veterans?

2008-07-09T13:43:00.000-07:00

Members of the United States Armed Forces who sign up for additional duty in Afghanistan or Iraq sometimes say they do so because they can't let their buddies down. They are concerned about others in the service. However one views the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, such loyalty deserves respect.

John McCain puts his experience in the Navy and as a prisoner of war to work as a major selling point in his campaign for president. This focus on his early years takes attention away from his four terms in the Senate and his present political commitments. McCain's overall legislative record has hardly been exemplary. He acted as a political maverick for a while; now he follows the lead of George W. Bush so closely that a McCain presidency can reasonably be seen as a third term for Bush.

Based on his military experience and his willingness to publicize it, many people conclude that John McCain must be a bulldog supporter of veterans. Remarkably this is not true. McCain is far from loyal to them. Unlike numerous service members past and present, he is not there for his buddies.

Consider the difference between McCain's votes and the stands taken by major veterans organizations.

American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars: Both groups strongly supported the Webb-Hagel Twenty-First Century G.I. Bill that McCain tirelessly opposed.

Disabled Veterans of America: 20% rating for McCain. Only two other senators had ratings this low.

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America: Grade of D for McCain.

Vietnam Veterans of America: McCain voted against VVA in 15 key votes and voted with them for only 8.

Many people who have never worn a uniform do what they can in ways large and small to help veterans. John McCain, who campaigns as a veteran and former prisoner of war, has had the rare privilege of sitting in the United States Senate for four terms, yet he demonstrates little concern for his fellow veterans. It looks as though right wing ideology has replaced loyalty to his buddies. If this is how McCain as senator responds to those with whom he claims a special relationship, then imagine how he will treat the rest of us should he become president.

Free Trade Is Not Free

2008-07-09T13:14:00.000-07:00

Free trade is a frequent topic in the contest for president. The term itself is misleading: people pay for our free trade policies. Plenty of stories can be told about how these policies have damaged people, families, and communities in the United States, especially in the Midwest. Plenty of stories can be told as well about the damage these policies have done to people, families, and communities in other countries.

For twenty-five years I have been supporter of the Ecumenical Refugee Council, Inc., a grassroots ministry based in Milwaukee that addresses human needs in several locations around the world. ECR is a shoe-string operation, channeling practically all its receipts to people in desperate circumstances. Its letters do not comment on politics or economics, but the latest one is an exception. Sallie Pettit, long-time ERC president, has this to say:

ERC remains deeply concerned about Columbia S.A. The information that we are receiving from our contacts there indicate that c. 80% of Columbia's population lives in grinding poverty, even though Columbia is considered a First World Country. Internal warfare continues to destroy the fabric of society there. We of ERC continue to support Sister Mercedes and her poverty programs in Bogota. Currently we of ERC are supporting all of our government and business leaders who oppose the United States-Columbia Free Trade Agreement. Many of us have seen or know first hand the adverse effects of "Free Trade" in other Latin American countries. We hope that you can find it in your hearts to join us in this opposition. There is an enormous amount of information on the net about the adverse effects of Free Trade Agreements on small farmers and small businessmen in Latin America.

The world is remarkably interconnected. Is this good news or bad news for poor and struggling people in other countries? Much of the answer depends on what we in the United States choose to do.

Time to Start Breathing Fire

2008-06-30T08:46:00.000-07:00

Democratic Representative Robert Wexler from Florida has served in Congress for six terms. In 2007 The Nation named him "Most Valuable Congressman" and Congressional Quarterly included him among "The 50 Most Effective Legislators in Congress." His just-published book, Fire-Breathing Liberal: How I Learned to Survive (and Thrive) in the Contact Sport of Congress is an energetic, entertaining, and hopeful account of his congressional experience set against the recent history of the United States.

Fire-Breathing Liberal offers a good introduction to its author, who belongs to the courageous wing of the Democratic Party. He and co-author David Fisher have produced a fast-moving narrative that features many laugh-out-loud anecdotes. But what I most appreciated was the ringside seat Wexler provides for such developments as

the Gingrich-DeLay subversion of legislative process and bipartisanship within the House of Representatives,
the theft of the 2000 presidential election, due in part by the mishandling of numerous ballots in Wexler's own congressional district, and
the growing demand that Dick Cheney and George Bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors against the people of the United States.

The introduction to Fire-Breathing Liberal is entitled "It's Time to Be Mad as Hell." Wexler's right about that. His final paragraph is also on target:

"After eight long years of Bush and Cheney, if we give the American people a clear choice, they will pick us overwhelmingly. But if we show them caution, hesitation, and meekness, they will remain frustrated, even despondent over the state of our government. I believe that if more liberals start 'breathing fire,' we Democrats will finally build a lasting majority."

I encourage you to read this book as a summer project in patriotism.

A Responsible Plan for Ending the Iraq War

2008-06-23T13:01:00.000-07:00

What's happened due to the Iraq War? More than 4,000 U.S. troops are dead. Nearly 30,000 more have suffered serious injuries. Our nation's military capabilities and readiness have been severely damaged. Our international standing has plummeted, making work with other nations to address security threats more difficult. Our constitutional system has been abused by an executive branch claiming unprecedented powers. Our economy is threatened, partly because to date this war has cost $16,500 for every U.S. family of four.

No political reconciliation has occurred in Iraq and none is on the horizon. As many as a million Iraqis have been killed. Four million have fled or been displaced. Half the households in Baghdad have lost a family member. Iraqis have no reliable electrical power, no reliable hospital system, no reliable schooling for children, and no functioning civil infrastructure. Unemployment is estimated at 60%. Young, unemployable men end up joining local militias rather than helping to rebuild their shattered nation.

In light of these well-documented realities, how can we bring American military involvement to a rapid and responsible end? How can we keep from repeating the mistakes that have brought us to this calamity? Working with military and security experts, ten congressional candidates have put forth "A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq" (www.responsibleplan.org). Their proposal has been endorsed by four Senate candidates and fifty-four House candidates. It includes several bills introduced in Congress last year.

"A Responsible Plan" calls for an end to U.S. military involvement in Iraq and transfer of control and responsibility for Iraq to the Iraqis. This draw down of troops would not depend on Iraqi action or inaction. It would occur with utmost regard for troop safety and would result in no U.S. troops in Iraq other than those required for embassy protection.

The United States and the international community would engage in diplomacy and nation-building rather than military action. Our departments of State, Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, Transportation, and Treasury would all play a part. The United States would work to establish a regional dialogue involving all of Iraq's neighbors.

The humanitarian crisis involving millions of Iraqis who have fled their country or have been internally displaced would be addressed through accountable assistance to these populations and their host countries, increased border security, and the resettlement of Iraqis at risk. Among those at risk are Iraqis who have assisted the United States; they must not be abandoned.

"A Responsible Plan" advocates that the three branches of the United States government perform their functions in accord with the Constitution. Specifically it requires that ongoing war funding be incorporated into the normal congressional budgeting process, which is not now the case. Signing statements by the current president have involved attempts to alter the laws passed by Congress; such statements must be eliminated.

Habeas corpus, the individual's right to appeal to a court of law against arbitrary detention, would be reinstituted. Government surveillance without both probable cause and judicial warrants would be eliminated, as well as the torture of detainees and their secret transport to countries that practice torture during interrogations.

The renewal of our military would include reducing reliance on unregulated private militias, the provision of first-rate medical care for veterans, and the restoration of educational benefits for veterans. Holding contractors responsible for their contracts and increasing congressional oversight of contractors would help to eliminate war profiteering.

Lack of impartiality and skepticism on the part of the news media allowed administration claims to go largely unchallenged around the start of the Iraq War. "A Responsible Plan" calls for greater public participation in the establishment of media ownership rules and increased diversity in the ownership of broadcast media.

Last but far from least, this plan supports research on next generation energy technologies and the elimination of our nation's dependence on foreign oil. These efforts are viewed not only in the light of environmental responsibility, but also of economic and national security. Investment in alternative energy will create new industries and new technology which will result in new jobs and a healthier economy.

"A Responsible Plan" envisions generous and courageous goals. The United States has realized such goals before and can do so again. This plan points the way ahead for genuine patriotism in the twenty-first century. Such patriotism will contribute to the rebuilding of Iraq as well as to the restoration of the United States as a vibrant and confident democracy.

Attitudes of a Life-long Learner

2008-06-20T12:12:00.000-07:00

The June 6 Washington Post featured a half page obituary entitled "Harlan Cleveland; Dean, Author, Statesman and Lifelong Learner." The headline intrigued me, as did the accompanying photo of an elderly man next to an elephant. I had never heard of Harlan Cleveland, but reading his obituary, I felt as though I was standing beside a theatre entrance as a jubilant audience flooded out onto the sidewalk: I had missed a remarkable show.

Cleveland packed a lot of living into his ninety years of life. "He was a journalist, an assistant secretary of state, a NATO ambassador, a university president and the author of a dozen books on leadership and public policy, and he was interested in almost everything--in part because he believed that everything is inter-related." Cleveland hated the phrase, "Have a nice day!" As he told one audience in 1989, "What I want is exciting days, passionate days, blessed days, surprising days."

Among Cleveland's books is Nobody in Charge: Essays on the Future of Leadership (Jossey-Bass, 2002). There he tells of how over the decades he reworked and refined a list of attitudes essential to what he called "a generalist mindset . . . indispensible to the management of complexity." Here are the eight attitudes he came to recognize through experience and reflection.

First, a lively intellectual curiosity, an interest in almost everything--because everything really is related to everything else, and therefore to what you're trying to do, whatever it is.
Second, a genuine interest in what other people think, and why they think that way--which means you have to be at peace with yourself for a start.
Third, a feeling of special responsibility for envisioning a future that's different from a straight-line projection of the present. Trends are not destiny.
Fourth, a hunch that most risks are there not to be avoided but to be taken.
Fifth, a mindset that crises are normal, tensions can be promising, and complexity is fun.
Sixth, a realization that paranoia and self-pity are reserved for people who don't want to be leaders.
Seventh, a sense of personal responsibility for the general outcome of your efforts.
Eighth, a quality I call "unwarranted optimism"--the conviction that there must be some more upbeat outcome than would result from adding up all the available expert advice.

Leadership of this sort has been conspiciously absent from both the halls of Congress and the White House for many years. It is in short supply in many other venues as well. The good news, however, is that those in conventional positions of power have no unique claim on leadership.

In his 1985 book, The Knowledge Executive: Leadership in an Information Age, Harlan Cleveland predicted that it would no longer be possible for information to be hoarded by leaders and alleged experts, but that leadership would increasingly arise from new sources rather than trickle down from established figures. Leadership would be abundant rather than scarce.

All of us can help this vision become a dominant reality. In diverse ways, we can contribute to the refreshing streams of new leadership necessary for the invigoration of our suffering society. The eight attitudes identified by Harlan Cleveland outline the shape of any future leadership worthy of the name.

Oil and Politics

2008-06-18T11:07:00.000-07:00

Everyone agrees that putting gasoline in our cars and trucks is expensive, that the price has increased alarmingly in recent months, and that for many American families fueling their cars has become a threat to their economic security and even their ability to pay the rent or put food on the table.

You may have also noticed that this is an election year.

The answer to our gasoline woes, say both George W. Bush and John McCain, is to drill for oil on the North American continental shelf, something that has been prohibited ever since both Congress and the president's own father banned off-shore drilling. The reasons for this ban are obvious: drilling and the inevitable subsequent oil spills pose catastrophic threats to the complex oceanic and litoral ecosystems.

Nothing makes this threat any less significant now than when these prohibitions began. Indeed, one could argue that as the world's population continues to grow and as feeding all those people becomes increasingly difficult, we should do all we can to protect and even restore the ocean's great fisheries.

But with oil up over $130 a barrel, with voters angry about their gasoline and heating oil bills, and with reserves of oil apparently sitting off shore, the big oil lobby, abetted by Bush and McCain, is demanding a chance to suck it out and sell it to you. If you've recently filled up your tank, you might agree.

Here's what Bush and McCain are not telling you: Under the very best of circumstances--meaning no regulatory problems, sufficient refining capacity, and cooperative weather and geological conditions--not a drop of any oil found will reach your gas tank in less than ten years. More important, under the best of scenarios, the amount of recoverable oil on the continental shelf will not make any appreciable difference in the price of oil. There simply isn't enough of it to make the pump price go down. See here. There are reasons why gasoline costs so much: the declining purchasing power of the American dollar--largely brought on by a ghastly and astronomically expensive war in Iraq--is one. A growing appetite for oil in China, India, and rest of the world is another. The reluctance of American car manufacturers to invest in fuel-efficient technologies is yet another. The list goes on and on.

Drilling in environmentally sensitive areas--and this includes the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--is not the answer. Pushing for new drilling is an election-year gimmick and yet another republican gift to the oil companies. Though the amount of oil out there will not do you and me any good, it will do plenty to engorge the already obscene profits of the oil companies that land the leases. Anyone recall what industry Bush and Cheney used to work for?

John McCain and Your Liberty

2008-06-14T06:02:00.000-07:00

There's a lot about John McCain that scares me, starting with his unrelenting support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq and his willingness to commit American troops to that disaster far into the distant future. But something he said yesterday demonstrates with unnerving precision just how horrible a president he would be.

On 12 June 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled, in a narrow, 5-4 decision, that habeas corpus still means something in this country. The court declared that prisoners at Guantánamo can go before an American judge to try to find out why they are imprisoned. Note carefully: this decision does NOT say that any prisoners should be released. It merely upholds the principal of habeas corpus, the only civil liberty mentioned in the US Constitution before the Bill of Rights.

What is habeas corpus? It is a simple, wonderful thing. It means that the government can't lock you up without saying why. A lot of loudmouths on the right will claim that this Supreme Court decision will lead to wholesale release of terrorists, that it endangers Americans. They'll say it means being soft on the guilty. This is utter bullshit. This decision means simply that our country is governed by law and not by presidential whim. Habeas corpus is the absolute foundation of liberty. Without it, there is no United States of America.

It is therefore profoundly disturbing to read that John McCain told a town-hall meeting in New Jersey that the Supreme Court “rendered a decision yesterday that I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country" (see here). McCain and his handlers have obviously decided that this issue plays well with the right-wing fanatics that are the bedrock of lingering (and diminishing) support for Bush and his assault on the Constitution. McCain is pandering to the lunatic fringe of American politics. More important, this tells us clearly what sort of judges McCain would appoint to the Supreme Court--more wingnuts like John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia, who voted to suspend habeas corpus, in clear violation of the spirit and intent of our Constitution.

There are many reasons why a John McCain presidency is something we should fear and do everything we can to prevent. His callous and opportunistic indifference to the American faith in the rule of law is now at the top of the list.

Nuking the Great Lakes

2008-06-12T09:27:00.000-07:00

Here's an important issue that's sneaked under the radar:

Ontario Power Generation is seeking permission to construct a huge, underground storage pit for nuclear waste on the edge of Lake Huron, at Kinkardine, Ontario. If permitted, nuclear waste with toxic potential that will last hundreds of thousands of years will be stored where it can leak into Lake Huron. So far, the Canadian authorities responsible for reviewing this project have not considered its impact on Michigan and other parts of the United States.

It's vitally important that Michigan residents express their views on this threat to environmental sanity. In addition to the fact that polluting Lake Huron is, in any form, unethical and stupid, consider this: the Michigan economy is in the tank, and one of the only hopes we have for recovery is the fact that the Great Lakes constitute about one fifth of the world's available fresh water. Storing nuclear waste on the Bruce Peninsula is a threat to everyone who lives in Michigan. Of course, it's also a threat to millions of Canadians.

Send an email, asap, to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. The address is DGR.Review@ceaa-acee.gc.ca. The deadline for public comment is June 18. For an easy way to do this, go the Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination (CACC) website.

Here are some important points, courtesy of CACC:

1. The study area for this deep geological repository should be expanded to include Michigan and all communities in the Great Lakes Basin.

2. The Environmental Impact Panel should be made up of members entirely independent of the nuclear establishment in Canada and should not include members of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

3. The comment period should be extended by at least 90 days to properly inform all communities affected by the proposed repository of its likely serious impact.

4. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency should hold informational meetings in Michigan and other impacted parts of the United States, in addition to meetings in Canada.

It's also important to send copies to your state and federal representatives, which you can do via the CACC site.
.
For more information, see this article in the Times Herald (ht/jj).

June 21 Rally for Peace and Justice

2008-06-06T09:35:00.000-07:00

BlueNovember.Org Peace and Justice Rally

Saturday, June 21, 2008
1:00 to 3:00 P.M.
Corner of Pine Grove and Sanborn
Port Huron, MI

Signs are available, but feel free to bring your own expressions of peace.

This is a non-violent, non-confrontational event. We intend to be a peaceful voice of dissent. All participants are instructed not to impede traffic or engage in confrontational debate with passersby.

As bad as Bush. Or worse.

2008-06-02T13:21:00.000-07:00

Looking for a portrait of John McCain? Cliff Schecter has given us one in The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don't Trust Him--and Why Independents Shouldn't, published by PoliPoint Press. Schecter, a political commentator and consultant, tells the McCain story in a fashion that is lively and well-documented.

The picture he offers is not a pretty one. Consider a few observations:

In 2007, McCain voted to abolish the federal minimum wage.

The Action Council of the Children's Defense Fund recently named McCain "America's Worst Senator for Children."

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), the country's first and largest Iraq veterans' group, graded all members of Congress for their votes affecting the welfare of troops, veterans, or military families. 36 senators received a B+ or above. McCain's grade was a D.

In 1999, McCain joined a group of neoconservatives calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein with or without support from the U.N. Security Council. Along with Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and others, he bears major responsibility for the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Former Representative John LeBoutillier, a New York Republican, has said that when McCain and Bush were both seeking the Republican presidential nomination, "Nearly all the Republican senators endorsed Bush because they knew McCain from serving with him in the Senate. They so disliked him that they wouldn't support him. They had been on the hard edge of his behavior."

The Real McCain is a valuable resource for the months ahead. Give it to any family member or friend who talks about voting for this candidate. Sadly, John McCain has proven himself to be not a maverick, an independent, or a reformer, but a legislative follower of the worst sort and a profound disappointment to a wide range of Americans.

Fairness and Equality: John McCain is clueless

2008-05-18T10:28:00.000-07:00

Most of the debate about my participation at John McCain's Oakland University town hall meeting has been about me -- the T-shirt I wore, how I got the senator to notice me, and even whether I had a right to be involved at all. Although these issues are worth discussing, the question I asked John McCain and the answer he gave me are more important.

When I asked John McCain why he did not "show up to support equal pay for equal work," he stated he opposed the legislation because the only ones who would benefit from it would be trial lawyers and others in that profession.
Here's why I found McCain's answer unacceptable: The legislation McCain opposed would have given backbone to anti-discrimination laws. As it is now, a woman has only 180 days to figure out her pay is not fair and equal.
What is so magical about 180 days? Does John McCain believe it is OK to pay a woman less than a man or pay an African-American less than a white person simply because it might be necessary to hire a lawyer in the pursuit of justice? People who have been the victims of any crime, including discrimination, will need lawyers, period.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act makes every unfair, unequal paycheck a crime, and it removes the 180-day, ridiculously unfair statute of limitations. After all, if a man is robbed, but he does not discover the theft until the 181st day, does it mean there has been no crime?

This November, I hope voters remember John McCain refused to support a law that would have made it easier to find equality and fairness in the workplace.

Our future depends on it.

HAYLEY ALDERMAN
BlueNovember.Org
Fort Gratiot, May 13

The McCain Initiative

2008-05-08T10:54:00.000-07:00

Oakland University Campus, Rochester, Michigan

Seven members of BlueNovember.Org participated in John McCain's May 7th town hall meeting at Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, to ensure the discussion included issues important to average Americans.

Each member was prepared to ask a substantive question of the senator, who chose to limit his opening remarks to three topics:

Human trafficking
Internet pornography
and Religious freedom

Hayley, one of BlueNovember.Org's youngest members chose not to wait until the question and answer period for an opportunity to create a meaningful dialogue. She stood up to display the tee shirt she was wearing which stated:

JOHN MCCAIN DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OUR FUTURE

The senator acknowledged her and gave her the first question. She asked him why he opposed a bill that would have helped support a woman's right to equal pay for equal work. Basically, Senator McCain explained that the bill would only benefit trial lawyers, not women.

Susan, another BN.Org member, asked Senator McCain to discuss his philosophy that "Free Market Forces" should be the way we protect our environment. Susan stated that our government and the American people should decide how to best protect the environment, not corporations. Additionally, Susan asked if oil was the real reason we invaded Iraq. To this, McCain stated, "No Ma'am, we thought they had weapons of mass destruction."

Other populist issues were brought up, but the question lingering in the minds of BN.Org members was this: Do the McCain supporters of Southeast Michigan really think internet porn, sex slaves, and religious freedom are the issues most Americans struggle with on a daily basis?

If so, they are the most out-of-touch audience this side of $4.00 a gallon gasoline and wrap-around unemployment lines.

Read more about the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act here.
http://themiddleclass.org/bill/lilly-ledbetter-fair-pay-act-2007

Democracy?

2008-05-05T09:48:00.000-07:00

The last seven years have been a scary time. We've seen so many horrors that the mind sometimes simply fogs up, and it's hard to keep them in any sort of remotely clear focus: the pointless slaughter in Iraq, the violation of civil liberties, torture, the suppression of sound science, the failure to heed the warnings before 9/11, the shameful indifference to the needs of veterans, the ever-widening gap between rich and poor, the growing control of our government by corporate lobbies--the dreary list goes on and on.

Last week a new bit of right-wing nastiness passed across our newspapers and computer screens; it ought to be getting more attention. This was the decision of the United States Supreme Court in favor of an Indiana law requiring voters to furnish a picture ID before voting. Sounds innocuous, doesn't it? In fact, it's a transparent Republican maneuver to suppress the votes of people--the poor, African-Americans, the elderly--that traditionally vote Democratic.

The important point to bear in mind is that there is absolutely no evidence that voter fraud is a problem. There is no plot among any group of voters to cast fraudulent votes. It doesn't happen. There is no need for this law. It does not address a current or imminent threat.

So why was it passed? For one reason and one reason only. The republican-controlled Indiana legislature knows that many elections are decided by narrow margins. If they can keep a few voters from the polls or make voting more difficult, they could swing an election. And they also know that the voters who currently do not have a photo ID are overwhelmingly likely to vote Democratic. According to Professor Amitai Etzioni of George Washington University, roughly 11% of the population lacks a picture ID that would satisfy the requirements of this law (see here). And it's obvious that the people without driver's licenses and passports are not your typical Republican voters.

This law is so brazen in its intent to disenfranchise certain segments of the American electorate that you have to go back to the poll taxes and other nefarious mechanisms of the Jim Crow South to find a parallel. It's one more Republican effort to steal elections they cannot win on the issues.

Robert Byrd on "Mission Accomplished"

2008-05-01T14:24:00.000-07:00

Robert Byrd, Democratic Senator from West Virginia, was one of the few brave souls who consistently and eloquently opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq. People sometimes mock Byrd for his grandiloquent style, his antique, courtly manner, and his dedication to pork-barrel projects for his home state, but in this case, he was far wiser than most Americans and most members of the United States Senate. Here is what he said on the Senate floor yesterday:

Tomorrow, we mark the fifth anniversary of the now infamous “Mission Accomplished” speech, which was delivered by President Bush on the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003. Five years ago, I took issue with the President’s choreographed political theatrics because I believed that our military forces deserved to be treated with respect and dignity, and not used as stage props to embellish a presidential speech.

The President’s declaration of “Mission Accomplished” and the “end of major combat operations” proved wildly premature and dangerously naïve. The complete lack of foresight and planning by the President for what lay ahead became tragically clear in short order. Our nation continues to pay the price every single day. More than 97% of the more than 4000 Americans killed in Iraq lost their lives after the President’s flashy declaration of victory.

Years from now, I expect that history books will feature the sorry “Mission Accomplished” episode as the epitome of this administration’s reckless and arrogant foreign policy, which has reaped disastrous consequences for our nation and the world. We have seen a President who is eager to use American troops for a political backdrop, yet is seemingly indifferent when it comes to providing them with the equipment they need, quality health care, or a real plan for ending the war.

President Bush has said that history will judge him on his decision to go to war in Iraq. I say that history is already delivering its verdict. It is evident in the strains of the long and multiple deployments that are wearing down our mighty military, and in the suffering of the American people as they bury their fallen heroes. It is evident in the fear and distrust with which the rest of the world views us, and in the instability wracking the Middle East, Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of the Bush policies.

President Bush has recklessly squandered more than 200 years of American leadership, good will, and prosperity. If that is what he was aiming for when he took office, then he can claim “Mission Accomplished.” That is his legacy. As we write the next chapter in our nation’s history, let us commit to building a new legacy that restores the promise of America, both at home and around the world.

Mission Accomplished?

2008-05-01T06:01:00.000-07:00

Today, 1 May 2008, is the fifth anniversary of the infamous "Mission-Accomplished" speech, delivered by President Bush on the aircraft carrier, Abraham Lincoln. Since the beginning of this war—begun in deceit, executed and expanded with incompetence—over 4000 Americans and perhaps a million Iraqis have died. Millions more Iraqis fled the country and now live in uncertainty and destitution, while those remaining in Iraq endure unreliable services and rampant corruption. Divided into mutually antagonistic regions and neighborhoods, Iraq is ravaged by sectarian war. The rights of women have been diminished, as religious fanatics have imposed misogynistic, medieval laws throughout the country. The United States has become a debtor nation, and economic recession lowers our standard of living. Allowed to prosper in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Al Qaeda has grown in strength. The reputation of the United States is in tatters. Iran has become the dominant local power in the Gulf. The United States has engaged in torture, kidnapping, and the violation of civil liberties, at home and abroad.

Way to go, George! And way to go, John McCain, who has enabled this war from the start, enthusiastically supported the administration's "surge," and completely failed to show the slightest understanding of the realities of Iraqi culture and politics. If you think the Iraq war was a great idea, then John McCain is just the president for you.

McCain and Katrina

2008-04-25T05:17:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, John McCain popped down to New Orleans, to show his sympathy for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. More hypocrisy. On the day that Katrina struck, as the always sharp David Corn reminds us, McCain was in Arizona celebrating his birthday with you know who:

Where was McCain during the horrible weeks and days after Katrina? What did he do then to express his outrage? Nothing. For him, as for Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the Republican-corporate-military machine, the people of New Orleans whose lives were wrecked by Katrina, mostly poor and African-American, are no more than photo opportunities. When not needed for a public-relations event, they are ignored and cast aside.

McCain and his wife possess a fortune of over $100 million. His political career has never displayed the slightest concern for ordinary people. Why in the world should we believe, now that he's the certain Republican nominee, that he suddenly cares about the poor, the dispossessed, or even those losing their homes to foreclosure? It's all transparent political theater.

McCain and the Real World

2008-04-23T06:33:00.000-07:00

The other day, John McCain stopped by Selma, Alabama, as part of a tour of America's "forgotten places." This is a piece of public-relations hypocrisy that defies reasonable description. He says he cares about our country's poor, the economic outcasts, those whom the American dream has abandoned. He talks pretty, about justice and fairness, but he offers not one word about policy, the actual steps that he might take to address the incredible gap between rich and poor in the United States. His plan to improve our economic health is nothing more than rehashed bushism: tax cuts for the rich and impossible claims about cutting government spending. See this excellent assessment of "McCainomics" by Marie Cocco at Truthdig .

For another detailed analysis of where John McCain actually stands on the issues that matter to American families, go here, where the AFL-CIO has assembled McCain's own words to reveal what he will do for us. McCain monotonously promotes himself as different from the current administration, and the media so far have more or less given him a free pass on this bit of carefully crafted fiction. Whoever gets the Democratic nomination can win in November only if she or he can effectively make this point: McCain is in all meaningful respects merely Bush with an older face. McCain is just another right-wing, corporate friendly Republican. The bit about straight shooting is empty rhetoric, and, as Robert Scheer cogently outlines in this piece at Truthdig, if McCain's elected, he will give us nothing other than the third term of Bush-Cheney.

McBush

2008-04-05T06:08:00.000-07:00

Last Friday, John McCain was a guest on a right-wing radio talk show, The Mike Gallagher Show.

Here's a verbatim quote: “no one has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have.” Here's a link where you can hear it yourself (h/t jj).

What else do we need to know?

Is McCain a Maverick?

2008-04-03T08:34:00.000-07:00

The key to John McCain's candidacy, the thing that appears to appeal to a wide range of voters, is his reputation for being his own man, for not adhering to a party line. He claims to be a straight shooter, a no-nonsense, independent thinker, not tied to special interests or bound to any ideology.

The truth is so distant from this narrative that one has to admire its brazen, shameless construction, abetted at every turn by a compliant press. McCain and his handlers have so fooled so many voters and, far more important, have so bedazzled so much of the press with this fiction that they might just lie their way into the White House with it.

In fact, McCain is a boringly conventional right-wing Republican. He doesn't look as baffled or talk as mindlessly as the current president, but in terms of policies, values, and utter obeisance to big business and the military-industrial complex, he'll give us the third term of the Bush administration.

If he's such an independent thinker, why did he vote against a ban on waterboarding?

Why has he voted with the Bush administration 89% of the time, supporting disastrous policies on Social Security and children's health care?

Most important, why has he consistently supported the debacle in Iraq? McCain repeats all the administration lies about defeating al Qaeda in Iraq. He's either hopelessly confused about the civil war in Iraq or he's knowingly pandering to media-induced ignorance.

McCain is no maverick. He's an old guy who wants to cut taxes for the rich, gut Social Security, and send more of our sons and daughters to Iraq (don't take my word for it; got to his web site, where the first thing we see is his relentless determination to send more troops to Iraq). He is Bush lite, and he's bad for us and our country.

Lessons of History?

2008-03-17T18:45:00.000-07:00

The first two episodes of the HBO series about John Adams last night led me to ponder where we, as a country, started and where we have arrived.

As this show and a mountain of scholarship show, the men we call the "Founding Fathers" were a flawed lot: they were vain, petty, and contentious, and many of them saw nothing wrong with owning and exploiting other human beings as chattel slaves.

But they were also serious thinkers, who agonized over their decisions, thought deeply about such matters as liberty and justice, and were willing to risk everything they had, including their lives, for what they considered a noble cause. One feature of the drama of the Declaration of Independence that we often forget is that if the Revolution had failed--and it easily could have--every one of the signers would have been hanged for treason.

Compare them to the current president. Where they were serious, he is a fool, a capering clown who launched--exactly five years ago, with a rationale based equally on incompetence and deceit--an absurd and costly war at no risk to himself or his family. Our economy is in chaos, with the dollar and financial markets sinking, while the deficit swells like an over-inflated balloon. Yet the president indulges in sophomoric jokes, blandly assures us that all is well, and demands further tax cuts for the rich. He is a man who evinces no curiosity, cannot express himself coherently, shows little interest in science or the arts, and wouldn't recognize a complex idea if it bit him on the nose.

The explanations for how we accomplished this decline are legion: an irresponsible press, a relentlessly self-serving plutocracy, a political system based on lobbying and favors, and an electorate often more interested in celebrity sex than in our constitution or our military misadventures. However it happened, we've gone from George Washington, who could not tell a lie, to George Bush, who cannot tell--and doesn't even have a passing acquaintance with--the truth.

McCain's War

2008-03-03T06:45:00.000-08:00

For the next seven months, our airwaves, our TVs, our computer screens, and our newspapers and magazines will be overflowing with republican claims about al Qaeda in Iraq. John McCain has already begun using a formula he will return to obsessively; he will endlessly accuse Obama (or Clinton if she should happen to pull off an upset and win the nomination) of willingness to "surrender" to al Qaeda in Iraq. This is illogical and ahistorical, but it will resonate with some voters, and the election may well turn on our ability to counter it.

Here is what we must say, repeatedly:

* Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before the Bush-Cheney invasion.

* The small but vicious group calling itself "al Qaeda in Iraq" consists almost entirely of foreign fanatics who easily entered Iraq to take advantage of the chaos following the ineptly executed American invasion and occupation.

* There is no evidence that "al Qaeda in Iraq" follows orders from bin Laden or others in the inner circle of the real al Qaeda.

* "Al Qaeda in Iraq" has been responsible for a relatively minor percentage of the sectarian carnage in Iraq since 2003.

* "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is exclusively a Sunni movement and as such will be quickly rounded up and either slaughtered or expelled by the majority Shi'ites when American troops leave.

* The real threat of al Qaeda comes from Pakistan and Afghanistan, where it has been reorganizing and gaining strength ever since the Bush-Cheney team insanely shifted our strategic focus to Iraq.

Al Qaeda, I believe, is indeed a threat to world peace and security, and the Bush-Cheney invasion of Iraq was precisely the worst thing this country could do in addressing the real horrors of al Qaeda. John McCain has been a cheerleader of the Iraq occupation since its onset (with some minor quibbles about strategy). The Iraq debacle should be McCain's to defend and explain. But we can't expect the mainstream media--inept, lazy, often corrupt, always subject to herd behavior--to force McCain to answer the hard questions, let alone show how his rhetoric is confused and incomplete, just another Rovian con, rewriting history and substituting republican talking points for reality.

If the American electorate buys McCain's claims about Iraq, he's the next President.

US a Christian Nation?

2008-02-12T05:31:00.001-08:00

We have all encountered people who claim that the United States was founded to be a "Christian Nation," that the founders were born-again Christians, and that any resistance to the agenda of the evangelicals trying to establish a theocracy today is thus a violation of the founders' intent. We know this is nonsense, but it's often hard to come up with convincing contrary evidence on the spot. Here's a terrific web page, provided by "Archiving Early America," with documented quotations from and references to what the founders actually said and wrote.

One excellent and useful example, from the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President John Adams and ratified by the United States Senate in 1797: "the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." Can it be any clearer than that?

McCain and Bush

2008-02-11T08:12:00.000-08:00

Here's the picture we want every American voter to have in mind, every minute of the day, until the first Tuesday in November.

John McCain

2008-02-08T07:57:00.000-08:00

It looks pretty certain that John McCain will be the Republican nominee, so it's time for progressives to get ready to counter the media's shameless love affair (see here) with him. People who should know better say they like him because he seems to talk straight and because he doesn't play the familiar political games. He does occasionally appear a bit different from the run-of-the-mill white guys in suits that run this country, but when it comes to policy--the things he stands for--he's just another Republican who's spent most of the last seven years kissing George Bush's ass.

It's time to start getting some truly straight talk about this guy, who, if elected, will give us, in fact, the third term of the Bush-Cheney administration.

Just a few minutes of googling turns up all sorts of things that the McCain campaign will not want voters to be thinking about, come November.

The North Carolina Democratic Party has a nice web page, with some telling McCain statements. Here's one you might want to have ready at your family Labor Day picnic when your republican cousin starts gushing about McCain (h/t jj):

After the start of the Iraq war, McCain praised President Bush for his leadership and said, "I think the president has led with great clarity and I think he's done a great job leading the country." Asked if he thought the president exaggerated the case for war, McCain said, "I don't think so."

Even better is Joshua Holland's essay at Alternet. Holland reminds us that McCain has said that it's fine with him if American troops stay in Iraq for a hundred years, and he claims the "surge" is working--this despite the mountains of evidence (well outlined in Holland's piece) that it is anything but the success the Republicans and their compliant friends in the press insist it is.

In the matter of the war and so much else, McCain is a Bush Republican. If the Democratic Party has any sense at all (always uncertain), it should shout to the sky, endlessly, "If you liked George W. Bush, you'll LOVE John McCain."

Martin Luther King Day

2008-01-21T07:17:00.000-08:00

Today we celebrate the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The few people who attend official ceremonies will hear much about non-violence and King's hopes for racial harmony. Orators will describe a peacefully re-ordered society where race is no impediment to success, where the vestiges of Jim Crow, which were ubiquitous in King's life, have peacefully disappeared. This is a vision to which no conscientious person can object, of course, but it's incomplete. In our quest for heroes who don't particularly threaten us, we have constructed a "King," with whom we can all (or nearly all--there are still troglodytes out there who'd like to abolish the holiday) feel comfortable.

The reality is that King was a radical. He questioned the way American society is organized, especially its economic system. This is the King that our contemporary politicians, of both parties, will not be eulogizing today.

A few months before he was murdered, King addressed the 11th Convention of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, in Atlanta. The compete text is available here and makes for fascinating reading. The title is "Where Do We Go from Here."

Among other things, King challenged the legitimacy of American capitalism. He knew that the poor of this country--of any color--would never be free so long as they were ruthlessly exploited by a system that denied their basic humanity. In a country where wealth and resources remain controlled by a few, justice is not possible: "We must honestly face the fact that the movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society. There are forty million poor people here, and one day we must ask the question, 'Why are there forty million poor people in America?' And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising a question about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I'm simply saying that more and more, we've got to begin to ask questions about the whole society. We are called upon to help the discouraged beggars in life's marketplace. But one day we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. It means that questions must be raised. And you see, my friends, when you deal with this you begin to ask the question, 'Who owns the oil?' You begin to ask the question, 'Who owns the iron ore?' You begin to ask the question, 'Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that's two-thirds water?'"

King understood that American capitalism, which, one should never forget, developed with the labor and sweat of African slaves, leads to the dehumanization and exploitation of human beings and to imperialism: "The whole structure must be changed. A nation that will keep people in slavery for 244 years will … make them things. And therefore, they will exploit them and poor people generally economically. And a nation that will exploit economically will have to have foreign investments and everything else, and it will have to use its military might to protect them. All of these problems are tied together." How sadly accurate this analysis of America was. And how sad it is to note how well it fits the Bush-Cheney administration.

Since King died, things have gotten worse. There has been a massive movement of wealth into the hands of an obscenely rich elite. In the last 30 years, as Bob Herbert reminds us in Sunday's New York Times, “The distribution of wages, income and wealth in the United States has become vastly more unequal over the last 30 years. In fact, this country has a more unequal distribution of income than any other advanced country.” To find out what's really going on with respect to the American economy, check out the web site of the Economic Policy Institute.

Martin Luther King would be appalled by the failure of this country--and both political parties--to deal with economic injustice. He knew that a government that serves only the rich promotes injustice and demeans human dignity. Wouldn't it be great if some of today's orators would talk about the real Dr. King?

The Surge, Another Look

2008-01-18T05:27:00.000-08:00

The headline for a piece in USA Today for 18 Jan. 2008, mostly reprinted in the Port Huron Times Herald for the same date, claims, "Military says 75% of Baghdad areas now secure." The article makes a series of assertions about how security has improved in that beleaguered city since the arrival of additional American troops. On the surface, these claims are probably more or less accurate; in much of Baghdad, street violence is down. This is obviously a good thing.

But the fact that the article stops there tells us volumes about what is wrong with the way mainstream American media report on Iraq. Tom Engelhardt has an excellent account in The Nation of what the media are too lazy or too corrupt to tell us. Let's take a brief look at just a few important issues not addressed in the media most Americans read or watch:

* Iraqi authorities say they will not be able to maintain security without American help until 2018. The president has admitted that is is the case.

* Baghdad has become a largely Shia city: see here and here. This is the real reason the violence is down. Those responsible for most of the ethnic killing have, for now anyway, won. Neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed. But this doesn't mean those driven from their homes won't try to come back. The momentary lull is fragile. Even if the Sunni don't try to return to their homes, declaring the current situation a triumph rewards aggression and ducks responsibility for enabling it.

* The Iraqi government has done virtually nothing to show it can actually govern. The recent legislation that appears to allow ex-Baath party members to return to government jobs is a sham. It provides no evidence that any sort of settlement between Shia and Sunni is in the works.

The Bush-Cheney surge has bought time. Iraq is not on the front page, and it's not seriously discussed by the presidential candidates of either party. The Unites States has brought unimaginable suffering, dislocation, and damage to Iraq. A momentarily diminished level of violence may keep us from thinking about Iraq for a while, but the unavoidable certainty that this invasion/occupation is the worst foreign policy disaster in American history is not going away.

The Surge

2008-01-13T13:33:00.000-08:00

It's disappointing to note the almost complete absence of any serious discussion of Iraq among the leading Democratic candidates. They all appear, more or less, to want the U.S. out, and they disagree only slightly on how fast that should happen. But they obviously don't want to talk about Iraq in any detail. One reason for this, I fear, is that, along with too many others, they think the "surge" has actually accomplished something. Or else they know it hasn't and don't want to appear to contradict the media-promoted conventional wisdom.

While the level of street violence has in fact decreased in recent months, the major announced objective of the surge, the creation of political space for the Iraqi government to get its act together and actually do some governing, has clearly not been achieved. The pressing issues--distribution of oil revenue, writing a useful constitution, and figuring out how the major ethnic groups can live together in one country--remain disastrously unresolved. For a satisfyingly acute expression of how far from successful the surge has been see this essay at Truthout by Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida. For an equally trenchant assessment of what all this silence really means, see this essay in today's New York Times Magazine by Noah Feldman.

We should not forget that the main reason the day-to-day violence in Baghdad has diminished is that entire neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed. The Sunnis and Shi'ia simply don't live near each other any more. Millions of Iraqis are either dead or displaced. The surge can never erase their suffering. It can only, and only momentarily, distract Americans from contemplating what our government has done in our name.

The American misadventure in Iraq is just as much a failure as it has ever been. Its consequences will haunt whoever is elected President in November. Until our politicians grapple meaningfully with Iraq, there's little hope that the endgame will be any less catastrophic than what we've seen the last five years.

The Election: Random Thoughts

2008-01-05T08:36:00.000-08:00

(Caveat lector: The following reflects my own coffee-addled meanderings, not an official position adopted by BlueNovember.)

Michael Moore has posted a thoughtful analysis of the three Democratic front runners. He declines to make an outright choice, but it's clear he's leaning to Edwards. At Alternet, Norman Solomon offers a cogent argument for why those who have been sticking with Kucinich should consider shifting to Edwards; like many of us, he's mystified by Kucinich's decision to instruct his supporters in Iowa to switch to Obama after the first ballot. Kucinich has been the most progressive, forthright candidate in the Democratic pack, and Edwards is the frontrunner with the positions closest to his. It makes no sense for Kucinich folks to move toward Obama. Go figure.

The primaries in New Hampshire and South Carolina will probably settle Edwards's chances. If he can win or even finish close in NH and then win in SC, he stays viable. If he doesn't, then I'm for Obama as the obvious best bet to stop Clinton. I don't hate Clinton the way many progressives seem to. Though I find her vote on the Iraq war resolution and her failure to make amends for it to be unforgivable, and though her later support of a resolution declaring an element in the Iranian security apparatus a "terrorist" organization seems equally politically motivated, I don't think, in the long run, that a Clinton presidency would be much different from an Obama presidency. They both would have to deal with a Neanderthal Congress (even it's run by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi), and they both have far too many ties to corporate interests (consider, for example, Obama's cozy relationship with big coal). I find Obama's endless talk of "change" to be vague, almost empty. But when it comes down to choosing between Obama and Clinton, I pick Obama, simply because I think he has a better chance of winning next November. Clinton has too many negatives with too many voters, who I think are more likely to move toward a relatively fresh face. Obama and Clinton are offering policy positions much more similar than different. Edwards's are better, especially with respect to the power of wealth in our political culture, but the media have opted to marginalize him (just look at the coverage in today's New York Times [h/t, jj]), and that may mean the end of his chances. So if we're left with Clinton and Obama, I'm going with Obama.

Another thing: when the hell is this country going to make its elections remotely democratic? The travesty of the Iowa caucuses and the obscene wads of money dumped there on television, political operatives, and god knows what else should ring alarm bells across the land. And now it's on to New Hampshire, another nearly all-white, low-population, rural state. Why in the world do these backwaters have so much authority in the selection of the American president? From the primaries to the Electoral College, the American system of voting is dysfunctional, undemocratic, and unrepresentative. Today's Times Herald offers a predictably vapid essay (not available on line) by DeWayne Wickham on the putative superiority of the process by which Americans elect their president, with the absurd claim that it offers "the world a lesson in self-governance that can be learned nowhere else around the globe"; I don't think the irony in that declaration was intended. You could say that the lesson suggested by our system is indeed unique. It's uniquely chaotic and unreflective of the popular will, and no people in their right mind would adopt it. In France (a country and a culture the American right wing loves to ridicule), to offer a counter-example, people vote for president, and the candidate with the most votes wins. Sounds pretty straightforward, does it not? In the United States, we can't do anything so obvious. Just ask Al Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000. That's a lesson for the world? Wayne, you must be joking!

The messiness of the whole process is well exemplified by the Michigan Democratic primary, which apparently is completely meaningless--not to mention a waste of money. I'm considering voting in the republican primary, just to muddy their already turbulent waters. Whom I should vote for? I'm thinking McCain is now the front runner, and I predict he'd be a formidable opponent. I also think he's nuts, so I don't want to help him. Giuliani scares the sox off me (take a look at Elizabeth Kolbert's probing analysis of Rudy in the New Yorker), so I sure don't go for him. Huckabee's a flake, and a win for him would upset the party bosses, but he's also pretty scary and might surprise us all. Romney is an empty suit, and I think any one of the leading Dems could take him down. So maybe I'll give him my vote on the 15th.

Global Warming, Again

2007-12-22T07:23:00.000-08:00

Local climate skeptic Lou Johnson has been spreading his ignorance again, most recently in a letter to the Times Herald on 17 December. He's taken to task in today's (22 December) Times Herald by SC4 biologist David Webb, who correctly points out that Johnson is getting much of his misinformation from the discredited and erratic William Gray. In his retirement, Gray is going around the country arguing that global warming is a myth. For a solid, devastating rebuttal of Gray's nonsense see this page on the excellent Real Climate web site.

Another of Johnson's errors demands correction. This is the claim, routinely repeated by climate skeptics, that "in the 1970s, scientists were instead predicting another ice age." To begin with, there was no consensus in the '70s about an impending ice age, nothing like the nearly unanimous understanding today that warming is real and that it's anthropogenic. Johnson and his ilk like to make this claim because it suggests that scientists were wrong then and we therefore have no reason to take them seriously today. What happened was this: some scientists did suggest that a cooling trend might be beginning. Their predictions were tentative, and they did not reflect anything like a consensus among climate scientists. It in no way constituted a situation analogous to what we have today. Like everything else that Johnson and other climate skeptics say, this claim is misleading and irrelevant. Grist provides a good response to it.

Global Warming

2007-12-13T08:38:00.000-08:00

The world is facing probably the greatest crisis in human history, and the Bush administration stubbornly refuses to admit it. The United Nations has convened a meeting of world leaders at Bali to try to work out a way to slow down the emissions of carbon dioxide that are warming the global climate, but the United States delegation is thwarting every attempt to reach an agreement. See this article in today's New York Times for the latest examples of American obstinacy. At this conference Vice President Al Gore told the delegates, “my own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali.”

Two points need emphasis.

First, the data showing a warming climate are unequivocal. So far, 2007 is the second warmest year on record (only 2005 was warmer). The last ten years are the warmest decade on record. No responsible climate scientist now denies that warming is occurring.

Second, the overwhelming consensus among atmospheric chemists, climatologists, and geophysicists is that human activity is a major cause of this warming. This is where the argument gets sticky. While climate skeptics now generally acknowledge the fact of warming, they like to throw out all sorts of red herrings about the cause. They say that solar variation explains warming, that water vapor is a more significant greenhouse gas than carbon is, that carbon build up follows rather than causes warming, that there's apparent warming on Mars. These claims--each containing a germ of truth--are all irrelevant and misleading, raised to cloud the ineluctable facts that carbon dioxide has been shown repeatedly to have a greenhouse effect and that levels of carbon dioxide have risen dramatically since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Scientists alarmed at the prospect of global warming all understand that warming can result from multiple causes, and they further understand that there's one cause of the current warming trend that we must do something about: that is emissions of carbon dioxide.

Two excellent web sites provide the necessary background for an informed awareness of global warming. Real Climate is an ongoing discussion among scientists about all aspects of climate change. Grist is an on-line magazine covering a wide range of environmental issues, with a terrific set of essays on "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic".

It's often said that the Bush-Cheney administration is beholden to corporate interests and routinely does the bidding of big business. This is only partly true, especially when we consider the list of American corporations that are pleading for our government to take climate change seriously, including General Electric, Sunoco, DTE, and DuPont, to name a few. The truth is that on this issue, at least, the administration is controlled by fossil fuel interests, especially big coal. Coal-burning power plants are the largest single source of atmospheric carbon, and the coal producing companies of this country do not want anything interfering with their obscene profits.

Global warming threatens our children and grandchildren with agricultural collapse, starvation, pestilence, drought and flood, possibly the end of civilization as we now enjoy it. The Bush-Cheney mafia are determined to ignore it as long as they are in office. But their days, finally, are numbered. We should be asking every candidate for federal and state office where s/he stands on this, the fundamental issue of our time. Any candidate without a firm, scientifically defensible position on the need for substantial reductions of carbon emissions does not deserve our vote.

And please go to this site to let the world know that Bush does not speak for you.

Iraq: Getting it Right

2007-12-02T06:11:00.000-08:00

In Friday's Times Herald, is a headline (no link available) about Iraq that suggests progress in that beleaguered country: "U.S. deaths in Iraq fall again: Refugees' return hailed as 'great victory.'" It would be wonderful if this were the whole story. All Americans would love to see that the sacrifices of American and Iraqi lives, the expenditure of hundreds of billions of American tax dollars, and the deterioration of America's reputation around the word had finally produced something positive. I say this here, up front, because it's become a routine talking point on the right to insist that those of us who opposed this war from the beginning wish for failure, that we are so relentless in our contempt for Bush-Cheney policies that we cannot accept, and even reject out of hand, evidence that those policies might be working. Nothing could be further from the case: we grieve for lives lost, and we hope for the establishment of a decent civil society in Iraq.

But we also are determined not to gloss over the truth and not to be fooled by superficial, incomplete stories such as the one in Friday's Times Herald. One place to start getting a more complete account of what's actually happening would be this article in Friday's New York Times: "Iraq unprepared as war refugees return." It turns out that the Times Herald, as usual, is reporting less than the whole tale. The putative lull in violence in Baghdad is largely explained by the fact that murderous militias have successfully eliminated their enemies from whole neighborhoods. Extensive parts of Baghdad that were mixed, with Shi'ites and Sunnis living side by side, have been ethnically cleansed, and U. S. field commanders are seriously worried that this moment of relative calm will quickly disappear when families driven from their homes try to return. The Iraqi government, such as it is, has no plan to deal with this potential catastrophe.

One reason the Iraqi authorities are so unprepared is the widespread corruption and criminal activity that permeate the Malaki government (click here). Remember that the Bush-Cheney "surge" was designed to give the Iraqi government breathing space to get its act together and actually govern? Rather than get the electricity grid functioning, the government has turned to extortion and theft.

While all Americans are grateful for any respite in the horrors brought to Iraq by the U.S. occupation, we should not be fooled into concluding that the Bush-Cheney gang finally has a plan. What's really happening is a constant lowering of expectations. Once upon a time in the Bush-Cheney fantasy world, the U. S. invasion was going to bring peace and democracy. Now, if they get the violence down for a month or two--though still to levels that should horrify us--they claim success, even though their own commanders in the field know that this illusion of stability is fragile and probably transient.

More Bush Hypocrisy

2007-11-21T15:11:00.000-08:00

Think Progress has a stunning article today illustrating further, as if we needed it, the truly mind-boggling hypocrisy of George W. Bush and his lackeys. Here are the horrifying details: A woman in Saudi Arabia was gang raped. For her crime (yes, our trusted ally in the GWOT, Saudi Arabia, declares that a raped woman is a criminal), she was sentenced to 200 lashes and 6 months in prison. Does the Bush administration have anything critical to say about this? Well, no. Did George Bush himself say the following in his second inaugural address: "We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend…that women welcome humiliation and servitude."? Yes, he did.

Invading Iraq: What Have We Achieved?

2007-11-04T15:43:00.000-08:00

* American Deaths: 3849
* Cost of the war: $465,730,004,018
* Documented Iraqi civilian deaths: 76,075 – 82,883
* Likely total civilian deaths: 1,099,372
* Iraqi refugees: over 4 million
(all the above as of 4 November 2007)
* Imminent war between Turkey and Iraqi Kurds
* Al Qaeda stronger, with more recruits, enhanced standing through the Islamic world
* Pakistan on the verge of civil war
* Iran's position in the Gulf strengthened
* Loss of American prestige around the world
* Loss of constitutional liberties
* Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, torture as official U. S. policy, civil war in Iraq

What has the U. S. invasion of Iraq NOT produced?

* Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, evidence that Iraq was in any way connected to 9/11, evidence that Iraq was a threat in any way to the U.S.

Islamofascism?

2007-11-02T08:13:00.000-07:00

Cenk Uygur is co-host of The Young Turks, a new morning show for Air America Radio. He was born a Muslim, has law and business degrees, and knows what he's talking about. Here's his take on the current neocon con, stirring up war hysteria about "Islamofascism." It's a must read, making three main points: the neocons and their allies are absurdly exaggerating the threat; "Islamofascism" is a nonsense, made-up word, calculated to elicit fear, but with no connection to political reality; fear of "Islamofascism" can lead (and is purposefully so designed) to loss of our constitutionally protected liberties, to accepting torture as a legitimate tool of American police work, and to illegal, unnecessary, counterproductive wars of choice. Please take a look.

Peace between Muslims and Christians

2007-10-29T08:35:00.000-07:00

“Christians and Muslims reportedly make up over a third and over a fifth of humanity respectively. Together they may up more than 55% of the world’s population, making the relationship between these two religious communities the most important factor in contributing to meaningful peace around the world. If Muslims and Christians are not at peace, the world cannot be at peace.”

This quotation comes from A Common Word between Us and You, an open letter signed by 138 Muslim scholars and leaders from around the world representing all branches of Islam. Their letter is addressed to the leaders of Christian churches everywhere, many of them listed by name. It discusses major features common to the two religions: belief in one God, the obligation to love God, and the obligation to love one’s neighbor. While not denying that Muslims and Christians differ over important issues of belief, A Common Word is careful to avoid giving offense to Christians. Instead it encourages both Christians and Muslims to follow their respective faiths more closely.

This letter is receiving positive responses from Christian leaders. For example, Mark Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and president of the Lutheran World Federation, has this to say: “I acknowledge this letter in gratitude and recognition of the need for its further study and consideration. I likewise accept it in the belief that Jews, Muslims, and Christians are called to one another as to a holy site, where God's living revelation in the world is received in reverence among the faithful and not in fear of our neighbors.”

A Common Word between Us and You is a timely statement since the two faiths are frequently misrepresented and misunderstood, even by their own adherents. It is an important contribution to the respectful dialogue between Islam and Christianity now on the rise in many places. A Common Word deserves to be welcomed, not only by Christians and Muslims, but by all people of good will.

For a summary and abridgment of A Common Word, as well as the full text and other resources, see http://www.acommonword.com.

Iran

2007-10-26T05:42:00.000-07:00

As always, Juan Cole is right on the mark today in his analysis of the latest Bush-Cheney moves against Iran. Yesterday, the U. S. announced new sanctions against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and several Iranian banks. As Cole points out, this maneuver stinks of the usual Bush-Cheney hypocrisy. The administration accuses Iran of supporting terrorism, when that's just what the U. S. is doing with the Kurdish guerillas now attacking both Turkey and Iran (see here). The new sanctions completely ignore the complexities of Iranian politics and will probably have little effect. For an excellent assessment of what it all means, see this article in Asia Times.

A U S. strike against Iran is probably on the way. The neocons, led by Dick Cheney, appear determined to hit Iran before they leave office. Republicans are lining up with the usual rhetoric declaring Iran a major threat. None of it is true, but that doesn't seem to matter. Iran is many years away from nuclear capabilities and does not have a delivery system remotely capable of threatening the U. S. The evidence that Iran is supplying weapons to the Iraqi insurgency is thin--about as convincing as the evidence that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction in 2002. In any case, the neocons never examine the fine points: the Iraqi insurgency is almost exclusively Sunni, historic enemies of Iranian Shi'ites. It is extremely unlikely that Iran or any of its clients would be providing arms to Sunni insurgents, who in fact are fighting against a Shi'ite government recognized and favored by Iran.

What really boggles the mind is the stunning incompetence of the neocons clamoring for war with Iran. That they are ideologically bizarre has been demonstrated repeatedly, but why does everything Cheney and his thugs do have to be so incredibly counter to U. S. interests? The occupation of Iraq has given al Qaeda new life; it has strengthened the Iranian position in the Gulf; it has strained the U. S. military to the point of collapse; it has destroyed U. S. credibility in the world community; it has run up a staggering debt. In no way has this debacle improved U. S. security. A strike against Iran would be more of the same. It will bolster the tenuous grip on power of the erratic Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who wants nothing more than to lead Iran in a military conflict with the U. S. It will disrupt the flow of oil from the Gulf. It will lead to much more dangerous circumstances for U. S. troops in Iraq. And it will probably lead to Iranian attacks on Israel. It could easily and quickly spiral out of control. Iran is capable of causing enormous damage--around the Gulf, in Iraq, in Israel, in Afghanistan. Do the neocons seriously think that Iran will simply change its ways and toe the U. S. line?

A military strike against Iran poses cataclysmic possibilities. It does nothing to make this country or its allies more secure. It would be the final move of a desperate administration unpopular at home and despised around the world.

More Phony Soldiers?

2007-10-17T13:17:00.000-07:00

Here's a link to a piece in the Washington Post, 16 October 2007, in which 12 former captains in the U.S. Army describe what's really happening in Iraq. How long will it be before Rush Limbaugh calls them "phony soldiers"? That's his term for any member of the military who dares to express independent views on this disaster (see here).

Al Gore's Nobel Prize

2007-10-12T06:05:00.000-07:00

Al Gore, who was elected President of the United States in 2000 but denied the office by the United States Supreme Court, has won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global climate change. The Nobel citation noted that he "is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted” to slow down this cataclysmic threat to world peace and stability. The New York Times article on this award is here.

What will be interesting in the next few days--aside from the inevitable speculation on whether or not he will now decide to run for President--will be how the right-wing attack machine will go into full assault mode in its endless efforts to deny climate change and smear Gore personally. The temperature is rising, and the polar ice caps are melting, yet the well-funded climate skeptics, encouraged by the Bush-Cheney junta, will do anything to protect the interests of the fossil-fuel trust.

Global climate change is probably the most pressing issue in the dismal history of the human species. Among other things, it will disrupt agriculture, raise sea levels, cause mass extinctions, and alter precipitation patterns. There's not much time left to avert the worst of what is likely to happen to our planet's already endangered ecological health.

Al Gore deserves this award, and he deserves our respect and support for his efforts to wake up a somnolent world community.

Honorable Interrogation

2007-10-06T19:06:00.000-07:00

The Bush regime insists that torture is necessary to extract essential information from its prisoners. But not only is torture immoral and contrary to international law, it is not necessary for effective interrogation. That’s the claim made by several American interrogators from World War II who were recently honored at a ceremony near the nation’s capital.

“During the many interrogations, I never laid hands on anyone,” said George Frenkel from Kensington, Virginia. “We extracted information in a battle of the wits. I’m proud to say I never compromised my humanity.”

“We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture,” said Henry Kolm, an MIT physicist.

When Peter Weiss, a human rights and trademark lawyer from New York, went up to receive his award, he took the microphone and spoke his mind. “I am deeply honored to be here, but I want to make it clear that my presence here is not in support of the current war.”

Read the whole article at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492_pf.html

Thank Candice Miller (Really)

2007-10-04T03:53:00.000-07:00

Candice Miller is one of many Republicans who voted to expand the SCHIP program that provides health insurance for children from low-income families. The President vetoed that bill yesterday, and the vote to overturn the veto in the House of Representatives will be close. Go to this web site to let her know that you support her position and to encourage her to resist the inevitable White House Pressure to change it.

(Bush) = (War) - (Healthcare)

2007-09-28T04:52:00.000-07:00

"Follow the money"--that's what a popular film a few years ago declared. That's how you find out what's really happening.

The Bush administration wants another $190 billion for its occupation of Iraq. If this request is funded, the continuing insanity in Iraq will cost 15% more in 2008 than it did in 2007 and be the single most costly year since the invasion began. (Click here.) So, do you believe the Whitehouse's claims about maybe beginning troop withdrawal next year? The money says, forget it.

Meanwhile, tough-guy Bush says he'll veto the bill Congress has passed to provide health care for American children. That bill would cost $7 billion per year for five years. For 2008, that means it would cost less than 4% of the price for the illegal Bush-Cheney occupation of Iraq. What more do we need to know about this administration's values? There's money for Blackwater mercenaries, but none for our children's health.

The MoveOn.org Ad

2007-09-23T15:00:00.000-07:00

While Republicans and half the Democrats in the Senate go nuts over the now famous MoveOn.org ad in the New York Times, it's worth noting that the first place this pun on David Petraeus's name appeared was on the Rush Limbaugh radio show. I learned this on the invaluable Media Matters web site. Rush applied this term, "Betray Us," to Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, who had the audacity to vote for a Senate resolution opposing the "surge" in Iraq.

Right wingers can apparently insult our military men and women all they want, but if a progressive organization questions a General's enthusiastic endorsement of the illegal Bush-Cheney occupation of Iraq, all hell breaks loose. The Senate resolution condemning the MoveOn ad is just more Republican hypocrisy, aided and abetted by too many Democrats.

The cost of war holds our nation captive

2007-09-18T21:33:00.000-07:00

In 1953, a Republican president and retired general announced to the nation the injustice of arms expenditures. “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”

The Iraq War demonstrates the truth of President Eisenhower’s words. In the early years of this new century, we are squandering our common treasure on a war that did not have to happen.

The National Priorities Project calculates that the cost of the Iraq War for St. Clair County through the end of fiscal year 2007 has been $207.7 million. With money like that, we could afford a new jail, even an overpriced one, as well as a new library, and we would not consider cutting back on education and public services. We might even fund business start-ups that would produce jobs able to support a family. $207.7 million has been taken from St. Clair County to fund this war, yet this amount does not cover war expenses for even a single day.

The National Priorities Project also reports that the cost of war for Michigan’s Tenth Congressional District has been $938.58 million. For that amount, 160,000 children could have been provided with health care for the length of the Iraq War. Or 7500 units of affordable housing could have been built for people who needed homes. Or 85 elementary schools could have been constructed for the education of children. Our nation missed all these opportunities—in just one congressional district.

The cost of the Iraq War to date is at least $1.2 trillion. David Leonhardt of The New York Times calculates that this amount would cover a public health campaign unparalleled in our nation’s history as well as a global immunization campaign that would save the lives of millions of children. Money would still remain to cover preschool for every three and four year-old in this country, as well as help pay for the rebuilding of New Orleans. And still that staggering sum would not be exhausted, with plenty left for legitimate security expenses.

With every dollar spent on conflict in Iraq, we become less decent, less hopeful, less alive here at home. Occupation and civil war are bludgeoning Iraq to death. The United States is dying by inches, hardly remembering the just and joyous nation we could have become.

The Al Anbar Deception

2007-09-16T04:50:00.000-07:00

For a good summary of how the charade of hearings in Washington last week is all smoke and mirrors, take a look at this article in Asia Times. The Sunni sheiks in Al Anbar have no interest whatever in propping up the Al Malaki government. They hate the Shiites, and they hate the Americans. It's a brief marriage of convenience, based largely on bribes and hyped to death by Petraeus and Crocker. It has no relevance to establishing stability in Baghdad or anywhere else in Iraq.

What's interesting about the hearings is the depressing fact that not one Democrat, including several who want to be President, asked a probing question or tried seriously to expose the shallowness of Petraeus's claims. As Frank Rich points out in today's New York Times, the only Senator to score a valid hit on Bush's puppets was Republican John Warner, who asked whether the occupation of Iraq had made America any safer. When Petraeus was unable to insist that it had, that told us all we need to know.

As bloggers and journalists all around the world have told us, Bush has no strategy. All he plans to do is keep the occupation going and dump it in the lap of whoever succeeds him. How many Americans have to die to while he denies his colossal error? How many Iraqis?

Gen. Patraeus’s boss, Admiral William Fallon, opposed the surge in Iraq.

2007-09-14T07:12:00.000-07:00

Sent in by Rachael S.

Fallon also called Petraeus “an ass-kissing little chickenshit” (sounds like the Bush administration to me!) The Washington Post reported September 9 on intense conflict within the administration over Iraq. The story quoted a senior official as saying that referring to the “bad relations” between them is “the understatement of the century.”

Why didn’t the Foreign Affairs Committee question Fallon? Please click on this link to read the entire article, then call congress. Demand answers as to why they didn’t interview Fallon. Insist that they take his comments under advisement.

Carl Levin 202-224-6221
Candice Miller 202-225-2106 Washington Office, 586-997-5010 Shelby Office
Debbie Stabenow 202-224-4822

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235

The Michigan Budget Crisis

2007-09-09T10:15:00.000-07:00

There's a terrific editorial" in today's Free Press on what's wrong with the Michigan budget: the quick answer to that question is one word, "prisons." The more complicated answer is that the Republicans in the State Senate obstinately refuse to admit the fact that the Michigan prison system is dysfunctional and extravagantly wasteful.

Consider these facts, all found in this must-read editorial:

* Michigan spends more on prisons than it does on higher education.

* In 1980 one in 20 employees of the state civil service worked in prisons; today the number is one out of three.

* The incarceration rate in Michigan is, on average, 40% higher than in the seven other Great Lakes states, all of which report lower crime rates.

What's the Republican plan? Same as always: cut funding, outsource, privatize--with absolutely no evidence that these will accomplish anything useful. In fact, one place where privatization was tried, medical services, turned out to be a complete disaster, bringing "national shame," "negligent care," "unnecessary suffering and deaths."

The Free Press editors provide a long list of steps that Michigan could take to make our prisons more efficient: these include re-examining sentencing guidelines, better oversight of the State Parole Board, and more humane treatment of offenders with mental illness. All of these would make for a better and cheaper prison system, and all are opposed by Republicans in the Senate, who routinely spread distorted, deceptive claims calculated to play on people's fears and ignorance.

Michigan faces an enormous budget crisis, and the Republicans in the Senate are doing everything they can to obstruct realistic, humane efforts to address it.

BlueNovember.Org gets SiCKO

2007-09-09T08:43:00.000-07:00

On Saturday, September 8, 2007, members of BlueNovember.Org joined many of their St. Clair County neighbors for popcorn and a movie. Not just any movie. They watched SiCKO.

Just two weeks earlier, BlueNovember.Org held a "We're SiCKO Waiting" rally in front of Krafft 8, calling on both theater management and movie patrons to work to get this important documentary shown in our community.

Matt Bieth, Krafft 8 manager, deserves praise and thanks for keeping his promise to contact the owner of Krafft 8 and request SiCKO.

SiCKO is an instrument of truth about more than our disastrous national health care problems; it is a message about how our American culture has been shaped into a construct of millions of MEs instead of one US. Let us now be courageous, work together, and demand change not only for health care, but also for the mentality that got us here in the first place.

Rolling Stone looks at Iraq profiteering Gone Wild

2007-09-06T11:01:00.000-07:00

Sent in by Rachael

Although this article is long, it is a must read. It outlines how incompetent, corrupt and greed-driven this administration really is. This should outrage you not only as tax payers but as Americans. This administration is determined to bankrupt our country, and this article is probably just the tip! As the article states, "What is happening in Iraq goes beyond inefficiency and beyond fraud. This is about a business of government being corrupted by profit motive to such an extraordinary degree, that we really need to wonder how we will ever be able to depend on the state to do its job in the future."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_swindle

What I Would Like to Say to President Bush

2007-09-04T08:37:00.000-07:00

August 30, 2007

The Rt. Rev. Charles Jenkins
Episcopal Bishop of Louisiana

Today the President of the United States of America is arriving in New Orleans for the occasion of the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. I do not know his itinerary, but I am glad he has chosen to join us here where the grief, guilt, anger, and frustration of a nation is gathering.

The country knows that the death of this American city, and many who live in it, could occur any day. According to National Geographic, "The Gulf Coast faces 50-50 odds of being hit by a Katrina-size storm this summer." Presumably, the President is also aware of this fact.

Recognizing our vulnerability, not to terrorism, but to the deadly force of severe weather, I would like to ask the President how he plans to clearly demonstrate his calculation of our people's worth and his government's commitment to our safety? The question is one that Providence has put to this President, and it is one of those tests all human beings dread – the kind that determines who you really are.

We already know who faith-based America has proven to be.

These volunteers have not sacrificed for the "safe" above-sea-level neighborhoods or the economically secure residents of this city. They have not given their time, talent, and hard-earned dollars to the recovery of communities that rest securely on higher ground.

The volunteers of this country are still coming in larger numbers than ever to help heal the lives of their fellow Americans – the same vulnerable Americans we saw trapped, suffering and dying on our televisions two years ago this week. And those "looters," "those people down there" as the President has called us, are proving to be some of the most courageous and resilient citizens of this land. Mr.President, did you know that according to a survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 98% of survivors interviewed in the Houston Astrodome following the federal flood said that their faith in God is what had enabled them to survive? I am proud to be one of "those people."

Does the President realize what hundreds of thousands of Americans are saying when they come to gut and rebuild this city block by block with their own bare hands? Does he realize what it means that tens of thousands of volunteers sacrifice personally to finance the purchase of building materials for residents who have yet to receive their Road Home money from the government? Does he hear what young people are saying by the thousands when they come to serve the children of this city as teachers in our struggling second-tier public schools?

It means, Mr. President, that a huge number of Americans love their neighbor as themselves. Not in words alone but in actions. This segment of our society, a segment whose values you claim to represent and share, has already cast its vote in the referendum on New Orleans. We clearly do not believe any of New Orleans or its people are dispensable or undesirable. We stand together in our fight to recognize and cherish the dignity and worth of every citizen of this city, and we believe how the citizens of this city are treated says who we really are as a nation.

We are waiting for a sign from you that you feel the same. And we hope, for your sake as well as our own, that it comes before the next storm. We will not be satisfied by tokenism when our survival is at stake.

This is what the gathering grief and anger of a nation is about this August 29, 2007. The people of this country still honor the social contract between citizens. We need to see clear evidence that our President shares this humanity, conscience, and sense of moral duty.

What forms might this take at this late date when so many of our elders and children have already perished from endless waiting in exile? New Orleans' own Douglas Brinkley, in his article "Reckless Abandonment" published in last Sunday's Washington Post made several excellent suggestions: Get serious Mr. President. Make an impact worthy of the scale of this disaster. Rally corporate America to ante up. Name a high-powered "czar such as Colin Powell or James Baker" to run this show. Create a "Herculean clean-up effort" as we did for Wall Street after 9-11. Invest boldly in the rebuilding. Think "Marshall Plan." Mobilize on the scale of a world power.

The above will at least honor the fact that thousands are investing everything they have left to recover the land and heritage of generations of forebears, and prove you are not choosing inaction as a tactic, hoping we will all soon be washed away. But to become truly a part of the Beloved Community that is forming in New Orleans and throughout this land you must do more.

You must think about the relationship between greed, policy and human suffering. Did you know that 30% of the children in this city are homeless? Did you know teachers are living in shacks without running water? You cannot in good conscience allow HUD to fence off perfectly livable public housing while so many people are in desperate need.

Did you know that faith-based organizations are the ones advancing their meager funds to families for the purchase of building materials because the Road Home has yet to come through with any funds for the repair of their homes? You cannot allow companies like ICF International to receive hundreds of millions of federal dollars in fees, while distributing a meager amount of Road Home funds to residents. Now we hear the department of Health and Human Services is poised to give additional dollars to ICF, the organization that has so profoundly mismanaged the Road Home program. And finally, you cannot allow the State of Louisiana to shirk its constitutional obligation to provide a quality public education to every New Orleans child, by wait-listing children for slots in public school classrooms.

We can be reconciled, Mr. President. New Orleanians are a long-suffering and forgiving people. But to be so you must show us that you see and value our humanity before it is too late.

This column appeared originally on the blog of the Episcopal Bishop of Louisiana.

SICKO waiting for the truth about our health care crisis

2007-08-27T19:01:00.000-07:00

On Saturday, August 25, BlueNovember.Org held a We're SICKO Waiting rally in front of Krafft 8 Theater in Port Huron for two reasons.

First, we wanted to remind our neighbors that "those in charge" of local theaters have refused to show "SICKO," an important film about our health care crisis. Incidentally, when we called to ask why they weren't going to show "SICKO," we heard the following excuses: "not enough copies to go around, unpopular, financial failure, decisions about film offerings are not made locally." One young man at the ticket counter did say one thing that was especially interesting. He said, "Management said it was too liberal."

Which brings us to the second reason for our We're SICKO Waiting rally. As for issues of great importance and relevance to all Americans, our health care crisis is right up there with the occupation of Iraq. And to make it a liberals only idea, well, somehow I find that strangely flattering. Liberals will proudly carry the mantle of "health care for all." What better issue to reach out to our biconceptual neighbors? Every single person, no matter what political persuasion, who has been screwed by the gargantuan Corporate-Political-Pharmaceutical-Triad intimately knows there must be a better way.

BlueNovember.Org intended this rally not only to ask for a film; we wanted to start a conversation that might lead to our neighbors finding some common ground.

Update: On Tuesday, August 28, BlueNovember.Org received a follow-up call from Matt Bieth, manager of Krafft 8 Theater. He stated that he had called Mr. Goodrich, Krafft 8 owner, to ask him about the status of getting SICKO. Mr. Goodrich told him SICKO was slated to go to Birchwood Mall's theater. Mr. Bieth explained that he learned from Mr. Goodrich that in smaller markets films are split by distributors between two theater chains. Mr. Bieth stated he did not know why Birchwood Mall theaters chose not to show the film.

The Truth about Iraq

2007-08-19T04:16:00.000-07:00

Is the surge working? Are things getting any better in Iraq? Is there any evidence that the continuing loss of American and Iraqi lives is accomplishing anything? If you listen to the White House or the Republicans running for President, you might think that American troops are actually gaining some ground over there, but if you read a stunning op-ed piece in today's New York Times, written by seven U. S. non-commissioned officers finishing up a 15-month tour in Iraq, you'll learn that neocon spin cannot disguise the unavoidable fact that this mess is, incredibly, deteriorating. You'll see that our "allies" are helping plant the bombs that kill Americans; that the violence on the ground is a horrifying web of factions, sectarian hostility, criminal gangs, and ancient animosities; and that the Iraqi people--insecure, economically depressed, frustrated, displaced from their homes--increasingly see American troops as an unwanted occupying army. The authors of this courageous piece conclude, "In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are--an army of occupation--and force our withdrawal."

Should the U.S. Bomb Iran?

2007-08-10T14:05:00.000-07:00

The bushies are starting to beat the war drums about Iran again, claiming just the other day that Iran is furnishing sophisticated explosives to Shiite factions in Iraq. Three things beg comment here.

First, should we believe anything this administrations tells us about a Muslim country in the Middle East? Were any WMDs found in Iraq? Were American troops greeted as liberators in Baghdad? Was Iraq ever a threat to the United States? Everything the Bush-Cheney thugs have told us about the Muslim world over the last six years has been either wrong or dishonest, so before we bomb Tehran, let's see some credible evidence, from a source other than the U. S. Army or its hirelings.

Second, there is something profoundly disingenuous about the bushies getting all bent out of shape with their claims about Iran "interfering" in Iraqi affairs. What the hell is our invasion and occupation of Iraq other than the most intrusive interference possible? If there were a civil war raging in Mexico or Canada, as there is now in Iraq, does anyone seriously think the United States wouldn't get deeply involved? Indeed, it's only a short time since the United States was involved--violently, overtly, illegally--in civil conflicts in Nicaragua and El Salvador, which are a lot further from our borders than Iraq is from Iran.

Third, a strike against Iran would play, yet again, into Osama's hands. It's just what he wants most, another U. S. attack on a Muslim nation, even one that has been adamantly opposed to his brand of Sunni extremism. How many Americans--let alone members of Congress--know that Iran is not an Arab nation and that Arab Sunnis and Iranian Shiites are historic enemies. Only another demonstration of Bush-Cheney incompetence could get the Shiites and Sunnis to cooperate.

Congress and the shameful vote

2007-08-09T09:01:00.000-07:00

Hello friends,

I wanted to pass this article on by Brent Budowsky. It says it so well, I can't think of anything to add.

Thanks

August 8, 2007
‘Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death’ (Brent Budowsky)
@ 2:12 pm
In today’s edition of The Hill newspaper I wrote an op-ed with the hope of initiating a serious discussion about how much freedom we should give in, in return for how much safety.
In recent days Congress passed and the president signed a new law that significantly increases the scope of domestic eavesdropping without any serious debate considering the magnitude of the issue.
It was done, yet again, in an atmosphere of fear, which in my view is unworthy of the people and Congress of our nation. I am reposting the op-ed here and if others are interested, hope we can begin a serious discussion, and I would be glad to respond to comments, questions and thoughts.
Personally, living and working near the World Bank and White House, I would rather risk the dangers of a terrorist attack than surrender any freedoms. I do not feel one drop of fear and even if I did, it would not matter one whit.
With many years of intelligence experience, I know more than most that some information must be kept secret. But what is happening now is wrong, extreme, out of control and against traditions of American history that have until now been accepted from the left to the right and by leaders in both parties.
Do people understand that terrorists want us to be afraid, and those who promote fear, or suffer from fear, are furthering a major goal of terrorists?
What do you think? My op-ed from today’s paper follows:
‘Give me liberty, or give me death’
By Brent Budowsky
Patrick Henry’s words ring hollow after Congress passed, and the president signed, a law of enormous constitutional and security importance in an atmosphere of fear, without any semblance of serious debate. Again.
While many members of the House and Senate and leading legal scholars did not fully understand this as the roll was called, this law expands the reach of surveillance of American citizens, on American soil, communicating with those “reasonably” targeted while abroad, without protections that have long existed.
How abusive the implementation of this law will be depends largely on the good faith of an attorney general with little remaining credibility.
America deserves the serious debate that has not been initiated from the original passage of the Patriot Act until today, which is this: How much risk to our security should we accept rather than trammeling time-honored constitutional protections that until now have been supported by a near consensus from left to right and all presidents from either party?
Was Patrick Henry right, that our freedoms are so precious that we should not surrender them lightly? Or was he wrong, and we will casually surrender them with every terror scare, before every congressional recess, during every election cycle?
Should these constitutional protections be surrendered so easily and so timidly with procedures more appropriate for an earmark enacted at midnight by members looking at their watches (in the hope of catching a plane home) and at their poll numbers?
Anyone with experience in intelligence knows: Terrorists are aware they will be eavesdropped upon.
While there certainly must be secrecy to protect sources and methods, there is much kept secret today, not from terrorists but from Americans, that challenge first principles of freedom in an age of executive abuse, congressional submission, and fear politics.
We are told we cannot know the number of terror cells, the level of serious training of terror suspects, how many or how few terror cells have been destroyed through these policies.
We are not permitted to know the true gravity or lack of gravity of the threat. We cannot know what actions were taken to alleviate the threat, what previous actions have been deemed illegal in secret judicial rulings, or why high-level officials objected, while our attorney general testified there was no serious dissent and no previous abuse of rights.
The American people don’t know the truth, and most members of Congress don’t know it either. Nor does the free press. Whole swaths of American life on the most important issues of our safety have been aggressively removed from our democratic system by those with a poor history of telling the truth and a clear history of fomenting fear for political ends.
Our security is undermined by treating the American people and Congress like sheep who should not be told secrets that terrorists already know.
Shame on Democratic leaders for lacking the courage to make a fight worthy of the occasion. Shame on Republican leaders for being co-conspirators in the destruction of the people’s House and the great deliberative body as a co-equal branch of government.
Shame on politicians who pander to fear, and politicians who succumb to it. Shame on the media that hype it, and highest level officials who oppose this but still lack the courage to speak out clearly. Shame on all who let this happen in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Shame on Reid and Pelosi, shame on Boehner and McConnell. Shame on those who act like Soviet Politburo members and try to bully a sedated attorney general, and shame on everyone who knows that leading officials of American justice were prepared to resign en masse, in protest, and do not demand to know exactly why.
When Congress returns and the presidential campaign begins in earnest, the question of the hour should be: Are you for Patrick Henry, or against him?
Budowsky serves on the Advisory Council of the Intelligence Summit and is a contributing editor to Fighting Dems News Service. He handled intelligence issues for Sen. Lloyd Bentsen when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was originally passed, and was legislative director to Bill Alexander, then the chief deputy whip of the House.

The voting scams are starting now in California

2007-08-02T18:14:00.000-07:00

Tonight I heard an alarming discovery by one of the folks attending the yearly kos convention. It involves an election being held in California next June 08.

A ballot initiative is being held by the law firm that represents the replublican party in California to disburse the electorial votes in a very interesting way that would allow republicans to get a good portion of the electorates even if they did not win the popular vote.

An attempt is being made to keep this quiet and "sneak" it into law. If the word gets out however, they will more than likely let it die as it would not pass and would be costly for them.

Please pass the word, right letters, email, make phone calls. Click on the following link to see the whole article.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/08/06/070806taco_talk_hertzberg

CC: Church of Christ Pamphlet Throwers

2007-07-25T14:23:00.000-07:00

July 25, 2007

Pastor
Church of Christ
756 Seventeenth
Port Huron, MI 48060

This past Saturday, July 21, 2007, our grassroots peace organization, Blue November was holding a peaceful, non-confrontational demonstration against the continued occupation of Iraq. We believe the killing of our soldiers and the killing of innocent men, women, and children in Iraq should be stopped.

We were standing on the corner of Pine Grove and Sanborn with signs calling for the end of the Iraq occupation. Our members included men, women, and children.

A car with several people in it, pulled over, called us communists and other names not to be repeated here and threw a handful of leaflets from your church on the ground.

We had to go into the traffic between lights to retrieve the pamphlets so they wouldn’t litter Sanborn Park and the neighborhood.

It might be good to remind your congregation that we have the right to demonstrate in a public place without menace from others. Having this right is part of living in a democracy, and it is what separates us from communism.

Carolyn Holley
BlueNovember.Org
P. O. Box 595736
Fort Gratiot, MI 48059

Note to our blog readers: This letter was sent to the pastor of the Church of Christ in Port Huron, Michigan, because it is located only a short distance from our rally site, and it is the only Church of Christ in our area. The leaflets thrown at us were stamped "Church of Christ." We have a strict rule of non-confrontational demonstration, so we use this format to air our opinion of this incident.

We have no proof of affiliation between the leaflet throwers and the church, but we wish to publish the facts as we know them to shed light on how some people confuse their religion with our democracy.

Susan Alderman

Liar Liar Pants on Fire

2007-07-25T12:09:00.000-07:00

By Rachael Siemen

I don’t think that a Hollywood screenwriter could come up with a better script then what is currently going on with the Alberto “I don’t recall” Gonzales Judicial hearings. Add another black eye in this administration’s belligerent disregard for the law and their utter attempt to undermine the intelligence and the best interest of the American people.

Okay let me try to understand this. Ashcroft ends up in the hospital, hands over authority to his Deputy Attorney James Comey. The warrant less spying program and the administrations use of torture program is about to expire. Gonzo and Andy Card rush to the hospital, not to have Ashcroft sign an extension of the program, (although he had an extension document of the program with him) but to discuss “some other classified intelligence issue.” Now Ashcroft’s wife along with Bob Muller (the head of the FBI) told Comey, not to let Card and Gonzo in the room alone with Ashcroft ………THE HEAD OF THE FBI!!!!!

This makes me pause to ask people where is the outrage? I’m incredulous that Gonzo can sit in front of the Senate with impunity and get away with his blatant lying. On the other hand, he certainly represents the current administration and their weak, inept self-serving policies. Well, I suppose one can say at least he showed up. By the way, where is Waldo? I mean Harriet Miers? Please go to www.democrats.com and contact your representatives to tell them not to stand by and do nothing!

Another good site is www.thefourreasons.org to explore the reasons for IMPEACHMENT!!!

August 18, 2007 - Peace and Justice Rally

2007-07-24T14:05:00.000-07:00

Stand up for peace and politics that benefit all people.

Saturday, August 18, 2007

1:00 to 3:00 P.M.
Sanborn and Pine Grove
Port Huron, Michigan

We will be wearing identical peace tee shirts. If you don't already have one, you are encouraged to purchase one for $15.00 to keep, but you may also borrow one and then give it back at the end of our event.

This is a peaceful event. All participants must agree to not impede traffic in any way or engage negatively with passersby.

Candice Miller, Are You Awake?

2007-07-19T05:04:00.000-07:00

Everyone should read the latest National Intelligence Estimate: "The Terrorist Threat to the US Homeland. It tells us once again how inept and counterproductive the Bush-Cheney policies on terrorism have been. The US invasion and occupation of Iraq is bin Laden's wet dream, allowing him to expand his organization and solidify his base in northwest Pakistan. US troops actually had al Qaeda on the run by spring 2002, but that's just when the Bush-Cheney junta lost interest in Afghanistan and turned its attention to "regime change" in Iraq. Since then, virtually everything the US has done has helped bin Laden to prosper, reconstitute his command structure, and recruit potential extremists.

Hundreds of thousands of people are dead, hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted, and the reputation of the US around the world has been tarnished, if not utterly destroyed. What does Candice Miller have to say about this? Her July 2007, "Newsletter" has plenty to say about passports, mileage standards, and Great Lakes shipping. When she gets around to Iraq (in a radio broadcast), she shamelessly repeats the republican mantra that the only problem in Iraq is the inadequacy of the Iraqi government, but--surprise!--she completely dodges the truly important subject of where al Qaeda actually is and what sort of a threat it poses to the US.

The latest neocon con on Iraq is to blame the Iraqis for the chaos brought on by the US occupation. Imagine: you invade a country, wipe out its entire infrastructure, disband its army, stir up ancient sectarian animosities, slaughter untold thousands of civilians, and then pompously complain when a puppet government you've propped up can't deliver electricity or police the streets. Yeah, it's really the fault of the Iraqis that their country is mired in this mess! When Miller and her comrades in deceit repeat this nonsense, they're insulting us and dishonoring the dead.

The True Center of Gravity

2007-07-17T20:15:00.000-07:00

Do you sometimes wonder who has more power: Bush or Cheney? Check out the four-part series on Cheney from The Washington Post now available at
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/

You may even find yourself agreeing with this recent assessment from John W. Dean, a former counsel to President Nixon during the Watergate crisis: "It has long been apparent that Cheney's genius is that he lets George W. Bush get out of bed every morning actually believing he is the president. In fact, his presidency is run by the President of the Senate, for Cheney is its true center of gravity. That fact has become more apparent with every passing year of this presidency, and anyone who thinks otherwise has truly 'misunderestimated' our nominal president and his vice president" (findlaw.com, June 29)

There's ample reason for Cheney to be impeached first.

Candice Miller's "War on Terror"

2007-07-06T05:58:00.000-07:00

On Candice Miller's web site, there's a section on issues and a brief page she calls "Global War on Terror." It's a superficial, deceptive parroting of Bush-Cheney lies and distortions, and it's a shame that our Congresswoman is allowed to get away with such nonsense.

Here's the first paragraph:

Throughout much of the past 20 years terrorists have targeted innocent Americans for murder in an effort to undermine our democracy and our commitment to spreading freedom across the globe. It was only when those terrorists attacked us so directly on September 11, 2001 that America finally got a vivid understanding of the evil we face and the lengths they will go in an attempt to destroy freedom.

The facile suggestion that terrorists have focused on Americans in order to "undermine our democracy" and "destroy freedom" is ignorant and just what the Bush-Cheney team wants us to believe (so it's no surprise that the always-compliant Miller is toeing the party line). This argument denies history, culture, and pretty much all of international reality. The idea that Osama and his henchmen sit around and ponder strategies for attacking our Constitution or diminishing our freedoms is laughable. It's convenient and easily digestible and makes a nice sound bite, but it's completely and utterly wrong. Islamic extremists hate the United States for clearly stated reasons: our unwavering, unquestioning support of Israel, the presence of American bases and troops in Saudi Arabia (now removed), and the invasion and occupation of a Muslim nation (Iraq). None of these rationales justifies attacks on civilians, of course, but they are the grievances that Osama and others have repeatedly offered. For Bush, Cheney, and Miller to shout incessantly that "they hate our freedoms" is insulting and dangerous. It's part of an effort to keep Americans from considering complexities--such as whether or not uncritical support of Israel is in America's best interest--and it stokes nothing but fear and reaction.

Here's the next paragraph:

Since that day we have been at war with Islamic extremists. We have taken that war on the offense by toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan, killing or capturing the majority of al Qeada’s leadership and toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq who had been a longstanding supporter of terrorists. I look forward to the day when the Iraqi forces stand up sufficiently to protect their new found freedom and our brave men and women can return home.

In addition to misspelling "al Qaeda," this builds further on Bush-Cheney deceit. It ignores the fact that the Taliban is still an active, dangerous presence in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. It neatly and dishonestly links al Qaeda and Saddam, who were in fact ideological and tactical enemies. Bush and Cheney have insinuated for years that there were ties between al Qaeda and Saddam. There were none; every terrorist expert in the world knows that, but it's become almost the last resort of the neo-cons still trying to justify their catastrophic misadventure in Iraq. At the end of this paragraph, Miller--or whoever wrote this drivel--calmly looks forward to the day when American troops can leave Iraq. Well, so do a lot of other Americans, but it's clear to anyone not brainwashed by Bush-Cheney propaganda that her primary requirement for this--a viable Iraqi military force--will never exist. The reason it won't is what she and all the neo-cons cannot admit, that the conditions for national unity in Iraq have never existed and what little chance there may have been of building them has been destroyed by the incompetence of the American occupation.

Here's the concluding paragraph:

Here at home we must also remain vigilant because of the knowledge that our enemies want to hit us here at home again. In order to defend against this threat we must give our law enforcement and intelligence gathering organizations the tools they need to make our nation more secure. As has been said, Americans are safer today than we were on September 11th but we are not yet safe.

There are two fundamental horrors embedded here. First, she's implicitly endorsing the illegal, unconstitutional wire-tapping and other forms of surveillance demanded and practiced by the Bush-Cheney team. Like so many of the neo-cons, Miller seems to be willing to surrender the very freedoms she otherwise claims the terrorists are out to subvert. When we docilely give up our liberties, when we allow the various arms of the police establishment to listen to our phone conversations and read our email, are we doing the terrorists' work for them?

And then there's the claim that "Americans are safer today than we were on September 11." The 3591 Americans killed in Iraq sure aren't safer. Our ports and borders are not more secure. The ranks of al Qaeda, as has been repeatedly pointed out, have in fact grown since the American invasion and occupation of Iraq. Just about everything the Bush-Cheney administration has done has served the interest of al Qaeda and Iran (see here). We are not safer today than we were 6 years ago, and the reason we are not is that the Bush-Cheney policies are a monumental failure.

WE ARE ALL IN THE SAME BOAT PEACE RALLY

2007-07-03T12:31:00.000-07:00

We must stand up for peace and politics that benefit all people.

Saturday, July 21, 2007
1:00 to 3:00 P.M.
Corner of Sanborn and Pine Grove
Port Huron, Michigan

We will be wearing identical peace tee shirts. These are a different color than last year's "peace sign" rally, but still a simple peace symbol.) You are encouraged to purchase one for $15.00 to keep, but you may also borrow one and then give it back at the end of our event.

This is a peaceful event. All participants must agree to not impede traffic in any way or engage negatively with passersby.

Cheney

2007-06-25T19:07:00.000-07:00

Barton Gellman and Jo Becker are writing an amazing assessment of Dick Cheney in the Washington Post. Chapter one appeared on Sunday and chapter two today. This is a must-read effort, the sort of journalism this country has desperately needed for the last six years. Cheney is, if you can believe it, far more insidious than you ever dreamed. If this were a just world, he'd be on trial for war crimes, violation of the U. S. Constitution, advocating torture, to name only a few of the most obvious of his malefactions. The man is truly evil, and if Congress doesn't do something about him and his lackeys (among whom you can count the current President), there's little point in dithering about which candidate you support in 2008.

What Will It Take?

2007-06-24T11:44:00.000-07:00

In his characteristically incisive, trenchant fashion, Frank Rich in today's New York Times (subscription required) warns us to be on the lookout for more Bush-Cheney lies about the "surge" in Iraq and any successes claimed for it. For weeks, we've been told that by September there will be signs of progress as the U.S. tries to stabilize the violent neighborhoods of Baghdad and in the provinces, prop up the teetering Maliki government, and train the Iraqi army. But General Petraeus and the other talking heads who defend the Bush-Cheney occupation of Iraq are already starting to play down the September deadline. They know what we know: that the occupation of Iraq is a disaster, a cauldron of civil war and mayhem, and that Bush and Cheney, unless forcefully opposed by Congress, will try to "stay the course" until they hand this mess over to whoever wins the 2008 presidential election. The "surge" cannot change the realities of chaos, sectarian violence, and utter horror brought on by the Bush-Cheney invasion and occupation of Iraq. How many more American troops will die for this insanity? How many Iraqis?

The only hope for minimizing further loss of life and further deterioration (if that's even possible) of the standing of the United States in the world community is for the Congress to say, Enough! The country now knows that it was misled and terrorized into this debacle. We know that the Bush-Cheney "war on terror" has practically nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11. And we won't be fooled when the Bush-Cheney thugs claim that the future of civilization itself depends on extending this occupation into the endless future. The Congressional leadership needs to listen to the people who elected the 110th Congress. We want this occupation to end. Congressmen and -women (are you listening, Candice Miller?) who ignore their constituents will be looking for work come January 2009.

Pork?

2007-06-14T12:36:00.000-07:00

At 2300 Krafft Road, in Fort Gratiot, you can see a huge construction project on the north side of the road, just east of where a service road heads to the Mercy Hospital clinic.

It's a common-sense truth of environmentalism that rehabbing old structures is better for the environment than putting up new buildings. There are perfectly useful empty buildings in downtown Port Huron and up and down Pine Grove, all with plenty of room for parking. Instead of retrofitting one of these, the local SSA opted to destroy open space and put a parking lot next to a wetland. A few months ago, a caller to TalkBack aptly recommended the old Sperry department store building for a new SSA office. Or how about the space vacated by Farmer Jack? Either of these would have been a great idea, but a government in hock to developers cannot see obvious good sense.

The new site will be harder to reach for many of the people who need to conduct business with the SSA. The old site was accessible from much of the area via one bus ride. Now people will need to catch a bus downtown and then transfer to another. In the January 17, 2007, Times-Herald, David Wilkinson, spokesman for the General Services Administration, the government's real-estate division, is quoted, "I don't expect it's going to be difficult for people to get out there." That's true only for people who drive their own car and don't worry about the price of gasoline. What about the elderly or disabled who can't drive? It's coldly indifferent to our elderly and disabled not to see that the new site is less convenient than the old one.

This new facility is being constructed by West Second Street Associates, a private company based in Flint. It will receive $411,658 a year, for the duration of a ten-year lease, which will undoubtedly be extended. This firm has similar arrangements with the federal government for facilities in Flint, Detroit, Lansing, and Ann Arbor, among others, as well as sites in Illinois and Florida. Quite a nice little operation!

After this firm completed federal offices in Detroit and Lansing, it took the government to court and demanded cash for construction overruns (over $450,000) and higher monthly lease payments (see here). Will that pattern be repeated in Fort Gratiot? Don't forget, these are our tax dollars. We can apparently put up new buildings we don't need, destroying open space and lining the pockets of developers, but we can't hire enough immigration and customs agents to keep the traffic moving on the Blue Water Bridge. What we need in St. Clair County is jobs, not pork-barrel boondoggles; we especially don't need projects built by a contractor from outside the county.

One wonders who decided that the local SSA office needed new quarters and that the option of refitting an old building (for less money) was not on the table. What was the bidding process, if any? Does West Second Street Associates have a terrific record? Or does it have chummy relations with well-connected government officials?

Stand Up and Speak Out

2007-05-29T05:46:00.000-07:00

Please join BlueNovember.Org

Saturday, June 2, 2007

1:00 - 3:00 PM

Pine Grove and Sanborn

Port Huron, Michigan

This is a peaceful event. Engaging negatively with passersby and interfering with traffic are prohibited.

Signs will be available, but you may bring your own messages of peace.

Memorial Day in America

2007-05-28T07:24:00.000-07:00

Here's a popular bumper sticker we've all seen: "If you love freedom, thank a vet." Here's an iconoclastic response to it: the last time an American soldier fought to protect or advance the cause of American freedom was the Civil War. In that distant conflict some American soldiers actually put their lives on the line to win freedom for other Americans, who happened to be enslaved African-Americans. Of course, some of the Union troops in the Civil War were indifferent, even hostile, to the rights and freedoms of African-Americans, but we know for sure that there were also Union soldiers--black and white--who believed that it was their moral duty to risk their lives to extend to all Americans the freedoms so evocatively asserted in the Declaration of Independence. Consider the case of Robert Shaw of Massachusetts.

Since then, American wars have been fought to defend American interests, not American freedoms. By saying that, I do not mean to insist that these wars were all cynical exercises. The United States was attacked by Japan in 1941, and I believe a military response was justified. When Germany subsequently declared war on the U.S., it made sense to consider Germany our enemy. A world where Japan controlled the Pacific and Germany did the same in Europe would have been an inhospitable, brutal place, but it is absurd to claim that either of these countries could ever have occupied American soil and subverted American freedoms. Our armed forces in World War II were engaged in a reputable cause, but they were not defending American freedom. Nor were American military forces in Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq (in either Iraq war). They were instruments of American foreign policy.

Today is Memorial Day, and in cemeteries across the country, orators will offer up platitudes and golden phrases about the bravery and sacrifice of the American soldier. There's no doubt that sacrifice and bravery have indeed often characterized our military (as have brutality and selfishness--after all, these are human beings, just like us, no better, no worse). But if you love freedom, thank the ACLU.

Who's "Politically Correct"?

2007-05-13T13:15:00.001-07:00

For years American conservatives have insisted that hiring practices at our colleges and universities are controlled by a rigid ideological orthodoxy, labeled by the right as "political correctness." Conservative pundits like David Horowitz publish books and fill their web sites with unsubstantiated claims about left-wing professors offering jobs only to those applicants whose views match their own. How ironic to learn (see, for example, this article in the New York Times) that the most politically correct institution in the land turns out to be the Bush Department of Justice, where Monica Goodling routinely advanced or thwarted the careers of U.S. Attorneys on the basis of their loyalty to the Republican Party.

Bush's War on the Middle Class

2007-05-08T04:54:00.000-07:00

The Bush administration likes to say that under its care the American economy is humming along, creating jobs and wealth, and spreading prosperity throughout the land. They often point to the booming stock market to support this claim. Middle-class Americans hear these assertions, ponder their mounting debt, and wonder how they got left behind. The truth, of course, as many know, is that Bush's policies have been terrific for the rich and terrible for everyone else. The Democratic Policy Committee, a study group of Democrats in the U.S. Senate, has posted a comprehensive, accessible report on the realities of Bush economics and how this administration has mounted an unprecedented assault on the financial health of the American middle class. This report spells out in frightening detail how the ties between the Bush administration and corporate interests have led to higher costs for everything ordinary Americans depend on, including college tuition, fuel, and health care. The natonal debt has risen out of sight, and our economic future is more insecure than at any time since the presidency of Herbert Hoover.

In every respect, middle-class families are buffeted by policies that diminish their purchasing power and transfer wealth upwards. The rich get richer, corporate profits rise, and the middle class feels the squeeze.

Is Candice Miller a Racist Homophobe?

2007-05-04T11:00:00.000-07:00

Here's an interesting bit of Michigan news: the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nationally known organization that monitors threats to civil rights, has identified the Michigan State University chapter of the Young Americans for Freedom as a "hate group." According to the MSU student newspaper, the MSU YAF is the first college organization to be thus identified. Now there's something all we Michiganders can be proud of!

Heidi Beirich, Deputy Director of the Intelligence Project of the SPLC, explains that the YAF is listed as a hate group because of a “13 point agenda” that "calls for the elimination of minority student organizations and the creation of a Caucasian caucus and promotes anti-gay beliefs and hunting down and deporting illegal immigrants."

Our own Representative Candice Miller appears in a photo with MSU YAF chair Kyle Bristow on his web site. The Michigan Democratic Party would like Representative Miller to explain just what she finds so appealing about Bristow. Is it the homophobia? The cheap shots at immigrant families working for a better life? The thinly veiled racism? Or is it all of these?

What a Mess!

2007-05-01T14:52:00.000-07:00

For a chart that precisely, depressingly, graphically displays what a disaster the US occupation of Iraq has been, look at these figures assembled by Think Progress. In every imaginable way, this war has demonstrated monumental incompetence, a failure to plan, a criminal ignorance of political and cultural realities.

It was just four years ago that the strutting little cowboy declared, "Mission Accomplished." Why is this murderous moron still president? Is it the lock-step, mindless loyalty of the Republicans in Congress, whose leader in the House of Representatives, John Boehner, still repeats the White House talking point that American troops in Iraq are waging war against al Qaeda (as quoted here in the New York Times)? When will this lunacy end?

When Will It End?

2007-04-30T15:04:00.000-07:00

Many Middle-East experts have made the case that the American invasion of Iraq was just what Osama bin Laden wanted. To Bin Laden, the chief threat to Islam is the United States; he claims that the US wants to occupy Muslim countries and steal their resources. He uses this claim, conveniently supported by US actions, to recruit new terrorists and build up his network of dangerous extremists. The Bush administration appears to have gone out of its way to make bin Laden look good. They fell for the bait, and he's been reeling them in ever since.

For the most comprehensive, most well-documented case yet available that this is precisely what has happened, take a look at this article in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs. The author, Bruce Riedel, is a senior scholar at the Brookings Institution, studying and writing about Middle East Policy. His expertise includes counter-terrorism, Arab-Israeli issues, Persian Gulf Security, and south Asia.

The Bush-Cheney invasion and occupation of Iraq is Osama's dream come true. It's the best thing that ever happened for radical Islam. If Osama, squatting in some Pakistani cave, could have been asked what would best advance his insane cause, he couldn't have asked for anything better than this incompetent misadventure. (The next American blunder he'd undoubtedly like to see is an American attack on Iran.)

Bush and his yes-men and -women in Congress endlessly repeat the White House propaganda line that if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will follow us home. The illogic of this nonsense is so transparent it beggars the imagination, but it's become almost the last resort of Bush and his thugs. It ignores the fact that nothing is stopping terrorists from coming here right now--certainly not our under funded, unprotected ports. It ignores the fact that what is tearing Iraq apart is a sectarian civil war, instigated by our violent intervention in a country about which our President knew, apparently, absolutely nothing. It ignores the fact that the entire reason that al Qaeda has established a presence in Iraq is the arrival of an American invasion force. It ignores the fact that al Qaeda is stronger now than it was 5 years ago because of this very invasion, which took the pressure off al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan and gave bin Laden breathing room to survive another day, to recruit, to scheme, and to plan more attacks on the West and in Muslim countries (such as Algeria, Indonesia, and Morocco) that he wants to destabilize.

It's hard to imagine a foreign policy more devastatingly bad for American interests than this Bush-Cheney disaster. No one knows what will happen in that beleaguered country, but to experts like Bruce Riedel, the only sensible course is phased withdrawal. That's the plan that the majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate has proposed and that Bush refuses to implement. Meanwhile death and chaos in Iraq spread; Americans and Iraqis die; Osama plots. Whose side is Bush on?

April 21, 2007 Peace Rally

2007-04-15T12:39:00.000-07:00

Our work to encourage our neighbors to call for an end to the U.S.
occupation of Iraq must continue. Please join BlueNovember.Org -

Saturday, April 21, 2007
1 PM to 3 PM
Pine Grove and Sanborn
Port Huron, Michigan

This is a peaceful event. Engaging negatively with
passersby and interfering with traffic are prohibited.

Signs will be available, but you may bring your own messages of peace.

Taxes, Again

2007-04-15T05:13:00.000-07:00

Last week the Times Herald published a guest opinion piece by Craig Ellis. His argument, a monotonously familiar one, is that Michigan citizens pay too much in taxes and get little in return. BlueNovember member Jackie Jablonski knew that his claims are contradicted by the evidence and contacted Call Back. The paper--what a surprise!--declined to print what she said:

For a CPA, Craig Ellis has a funny way with numbers. My sources say that New Jersey has the third highest tax burden in the country, with Michigan way behind at 20th. It’s also relevant that a recent study shows that children are far better off in states that pay the highest taxes than are children in states that pay the lowest. Check it out at everychildmatters.org. And remember that Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “Taxes are the price we pay for civilization.”

Taxes and Services

2007-04-08T12:34:00.000-07:00

The City of Port Huron is facing a crisis with its sewer separation program and will probably be forced to increase, perhaps even double, what it charges for water. One reason for this that no one seems to be pointing out is that the Republicans in Lansing have gutted the state budget over the last decade. In their mindless drive to cut state taxes, they have made it nearly impossible for the state to serve its citizens in a reasonable way. When Port Huron first planned for the sewer separation project, it expected to get a million dollars per year in revenue-sharing funds from the state, as reported by Mike Connell in today's Times Herald (Mike's column is not on line).

No one enjoys paying taxes, of course, but the Republican obsession with cutting them to the point where our government simply cannot perform the functions we expect of it has contributed to the mess that Port Huron finds itself in today. The state budget has been slashed to the bone. The Republicans who control the legislature claim that tax cuts create jobs and improve the business climate. Has the economy improved? Are businesses moving to Michigan? Are there new jobs in St. Clair County? Or are the wealthy putting more cash in their stock portfolios while the rest of us pay higher water bills and wonder whether the State Police will have enough troopers to cope with the next emergency?

Step It Up 2007

2007-04-07T11:38:00.000-07:00

If you care about the future of our planet and how it is threatened by climate change, plan to meet at the Peace Pole in Pine Grove Park in Port Huron between noon and 2:00 PM, on Saturday, April 14. This is part of a nationwide effort, Step It Up 2007, organized by Bill McKibben and many others, to raise awareness of this cataclysmic threat to environmental, social, and political stability and to send a message to Congress that we want the United States to join the worldwide effort to do something about it. Over 1300 actions and rallies are planned, with all 50 states represented.

Here's a link to a letter in Friday's Times Herald from Christine Danner, who has taken the lead in organizing Port Huron's Step It Up 2007 event.

And if you still have doubts about what the consequences of global climate change will be, take a look at the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, discussed here in today's New York Times.

Who's Bush Working For?

2007-04-01T06:32:00.000-07:00

Here's Tony Auth's 25 March 2007 cartoon (forwarded to me by an astute citizen and member of BlueNovember):

It illustrates with tragic conciseness one of the many horrible consequences of Bush's insane Iraq war. All around the Islamic world, it has become easier for Osama bin Laden to get young men to join his terrorist legions.

One of the chief arguments in Osama's radical rant is that the West is out to destroy Islam. When Bush and his pack of neocon loonies opted to invade and occupy an Islamic country that had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks of September 11, it gave Osama the best recruiting tool he could ever have hoped for. Add to that the unavoidable fact that the Iraq disaster means that the U.S. can't pay adequate attention to the places where al Qaida is actually active--Afghanistan and Pakistan--and you have a combination of arrogance, ignorance, and incompetence that suits Osama's needs perfectly. Osama needs Bush, just as Bush needs Osama.

Mission Accomplished?

2007-03-27T10:53:00.000-07:00

Remember "Mission Accomplished"? That was the day President Bush (the guy who went awol during his ROTC training) staged an elaborate fly-in to a US aircraft carrier and announced the end "of all major combat operations" in Iraq. This was in May 2003. Want to see how peaceful it's been in Baghdad since that day? A member of BlueNovember sent me this link to an interactive BBC site where you can track the horrors visited upon that wretched city since the US invasion and occupation. The violence and mayhem illustrated on this site explain why a majority of Iraqis say that they want US troops out of their country, believe they will be safer and more secure once the Americans leave, and even think that attacks on coalition troops are justified (click here).

Partisan?

2007-03-25T05:59:00.000-07:00

The news about Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the desperate Republican efforts to deflect attention from his nefarious doings tells us a lot about how this White House works. As the evidence mounts that Gonzales actively participated in firing U.S. attorneys for nakedly political reasons and then lied about his involvement, President Bush, according to an AP article in Sunday's Times Herald (not available on line), is insisting that the whole affair is nothing but a Democratic, partisan attack; on Saturday, Bush declared, "We need to put partisan politics aside and come together to enact important legislation for the American people."

The idea of a Republican playing the "partisan" card is so laughable it boggles the mind. Nothing in our political history was more partisan and less justified than the Republican assault on President Clinton that culminated in impeachment proceedings. This absurd drama shut down our government for months and made us the joke of the world.

Add to this the list of Gonzales's actual exploits, concisely reviewed in Frank Rich's column (subscription required) in today's New York Times. Gonzales has advocated torture, covered up for Enron, impeded the investigation of who illegally outed CIA agent Valerie Plame, and interfered with various probes into Republican corruption.

When the President says it's all "partisan," you have to wonder what else the spotlight on Gonzales will reveal. Will this affair finally show American voters that this White House is itself brazenly partisan and dedicated to nothing other than maintaining its own power?

Informed Citizens

2007-03-19T06:02:00.000-07:00

A comment on the last post (from "Anonymous") cited Informed Comment, where Juan Cole offers daily information on and analysis of what's happening in Iraq and its vicinity. Cole is a professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History at the University of Michigan and an internationally recognized expert on Islamic history, culture, and society. He speaks and reads Arabic, Persian, and Urdu, and thus one of the many virtues of Informed Comment is that Cole is able to tell us what the Arabic, Iranian, and Pakistani Press are writing about the debacle in Iraq.

President Bush and his henchmen like to say that Americans are pessimistic about this war, now entering its fifth year, because they don't know what's really going on in Iraq. This is one instance where I have to admit they are partly right. If you read Cole and other conscientious sources, you'll see that in fact everything in Iraq is much worse than the mainstream media are telling us. American and other western journalists are, for the most part, justifiably nervous about leaving the Green Zone and are unable to learn the on-the-ground realities in Anbar Province, the slums of Baghdad, and other places where insurgent and sectarian violence rages.

One of the responsibilities of citizens in a democracy is that they make an effort to inform themselves about current events. This is especially challenging in the modern United States where so much of the media, particularly radio and TV, is controlled by corporate interests. Fox News, for example, is little more than an outlet for White House propaganda; other media, obsessed with missing white girls and misbehaving celebrities, are little better. But the internet is full of useful information and analysis. It's our duty as citizens to find these sources, read them, and think about them. Informed Comment is a good place to start.

A Tragic Anniversary

2007-03-17T07:29:00.000-07:00

March 19 is the 4th anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq war. For a reminder of what this unconstitutional, counter-productive, immoral disaster has cost in the unnecessary and indefensible loss of human life, click here. For the cost in dollars, try here. For a timeline of all the insanity, click here.

This war was conceived in ignorance and deceit. It has alienated our allies, emboldened (to use one of Dick Cheney's favorite words) our enemies, slaughtered at least tens of thousands (probably hundreds of thousands) of innocent human beings, wasted our money, and diminished our Constitution. It was begun by men who had never seen combat, whose vision of the world was--and remains--a hallucinatory fantasy. The world is a much more dangerous and unstable place because of it; both Al Qaeda and Iran have been strengthened by this incompetently executed misadventure. We abandoned Afghanistan, where we had some justification for our presence, to a resurgent Taliban and sent our army to Iraq, where, notwithstanding the brutalities of Saddam, the Iraqi people are now measurably more miserable than they were before the US invasion and occupation. America is hated around the world because of the lunatic ineptitude of the neocons who continue to run our government. This war is the worst foreign-policy disaster in American history. We will be living (and dying) with its consequences for decades.

Simple pragmatism fuels Iraq War protests

2007-02-16T16:28:00.000-08:00

4 February 2007

One argument often repeated by the defenders of the war in Iraq is that people protesting the war demoralize the American troops. But the reason that so many Americans are protesting this war is not because they are unpatriotic or indifferent to our troops' sacrifices. It is because the Bush administration cannot make a persuasive case for continuing a war that was destined to fail.

The war began with lies and ignorance--lies about weapons of mass destruction and ignorance about the realities of Iraqi culture, politics, and history. It was only a matter of time before a majority of Americans figured this out and began asking why our soldiers are dying in Iraq.

We are told that we are fighting an enemy determined to destroy our way of life. If this were the case, there would be no debate: we would of course commit all our resources to absolute victory. But Iraq was not a threat to America when this war began, and it is no threat today.

The Sunni insurgency hates the Shia majority and the occupying foreign army that set up the Shia government. Iraq has spiraled into civil war, and there is nothing that American troops can do to stop it. By their very presence, American troops provide targets for bombs and resentment.

In America, I hope, the people express their opinions and, eventually, determine what their country does. It's in totalitarian states that wars are fought and soldiers die because dictators demand it.

Philip Terrie

Rally to Demand and end to U.S. occupation of Iraq

2007-01-20T20:05:00.000-08:00

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

4:00 to 5:00 P.M.

Sanborn and Pine Grove

Port Huron, Michigan

We have a specific objective for the rally; we will be asking passersby to call their congressional representatives and demand an end to the occupation of Iraq. In our visualization, we will include a large banner on which we have painted the phone number for Congress.

This is a peaceful event. All attendees must agree to interact positively

with passersby. No one is allowed to impede traffic in any way.

Dear Mr. President: Diplomacy, please.

2007-01-11T08:02:00.000-08:00

Dear Mr. President,

Please don't do it. Don't send twenty thousand more Americans armed with guns to solve the problems in Iraq. The problems in Iraq can only be solved by people talking about peace, thinking about how to achieve it, and working together for a better future.

Please face facts, diplomacy is mandatory, so why wait? No matter if the war rages on for days, weeks, months, or years, lasting peace will only be achieved through the creativity of the human mind and the willingness of the human heart.

Mr. President, do something crazy. Call a cease fire. Call forth every relevant scholar and person of sound judgment and goodwill. Delegate to them the task of creating peace in Iraq through peaceful means.

But, here's the thing. You can't be the one to be in charge of implementation. No offense, but do you remember the 9/11 Commission Report or the Hamilton Baker Iraq Study Group? What about when the U.S. intelligence agencies told you the Iraq War was creating instability in the region and increasing the worldwide threat of terrorism? You didn't listen to any of them. And what about the American people and our elected representatives in Congress who told you your military strategies are a hindrance? Again, you didn't listen.

So, how about it? You said you want a fresh approach. This is the freshest yet. Provide others, today, with an opportunity to make things right for the Iraqi people, for our soldiers, our country, and the planet, through the untapped potential of dialogue, compromise, and diplomacy.

Sincerely,

Susan Alderman
BlueNovember.Org

Granholm Appoints Emergency Financial Advisory Panel

2007-01-11T05:20:00.000-08:00

LANSING -- Governor Jennifer M. Granholm is asking a bipartisan Emergency Financial Advisory Panel to review the state’s current financial crisis and offer recommendations on how best to avoid similar crises in the years ahead.

Co-chaired by former governors William G. Milliken and James J. Blanchard, the advisory panel will report back to the Governor with its recommendations by the end of January.
“As I said in my Inaugural Address just days ago, we have an economic plan that will transform Michigan from a great 20th century state to an even greater state in the 21st century,” Granholm said. “However, full economic transformation is the most pressing problem we face, and how we solve the state’s fiscal crisis is a critical part of our ability to transform our economy. I am pleased to draw upon the expertise of Michigan’s most experienced and respected leaders to offer insight on how to solve this crisis.”
Granholm is seeking the counsel of some of Michigan’s most distinguished leaders as she prepares to deliver the 2007 State of State Address and submit her proposed 2008 state budget. Her budget recommendation will be based on revenue projections coming from the Revenue Estimating Conference scheduled for January 18. That conference is expected to identify a shortfall as high as $1 billion for the current and upcoming fiscal years. That shortfall is in addition to the loss of $2 billion in 2008 as a result of lawmakers’ decision to eliminate the Single Business Tax without replacing it.
The panel was selected based on the varied backgrounds and views of the members, along with their depth and breath of knowledge about state government.

In addition to former Governors Milliken and Blanchard, the advisory panel includes former legislative leaders, one of whom also served as state budget director. They include:
Dr. John Porter, former president of Eastern Michigan University and former state superintendent for public instruction
Paul Hillegonds, senior vice president of DTE Energy and former co-speaker of the state House of Representatives
Dan DeGrow, superintendent of St. Clair County Regional Educational Service Agency and former Republican state Senate majority leader
Sr. Monica Kostielney, president & CEO of the Michigan Catholic Conference
Dr. Lou Anna K. Simon, president of Michigan State University
Frank Kelley, former Michigan attorney general
S. Martin Taylor, University of Michigan regent
John “Joe” Schwarz, M.D., former U.S. Congressman and former chair of the state Senate Appropriations Committee
Don Gilmer, Kalamazoo County administrator and former state budget director
Doug Roberts, former state treasurer
# # #

What now? A Christmas list

2006-11-27T12:09:00.000-08:00

Here is a short wish list for my community here in St. Clair County, across this country, and around the globe. Please comment, agree, disagree, and add your two cents or "nickel's worth" as Handsome Bill Brown says.

My list:

1. Out of Iraq right now. No more dinking around. We screwed up royally. Leave the Iraqis all the trucks, machinery, and whatever else might help them rebuild and get out.

2. Paper ballots across America for every election from now on. No machines, no Diebold.

3. Take bold steps to save our environment. Let's have a war on polluters. No bloodshed, just make them pay every cent necessary to clean up their old messes and stop making new ones.

4. Put kids and schools first. And stop the majority of testing.

5. Value American workers. Raise the minimum wage to ten bucks an hour.

6. Create national health care. Health care in this country is not working. Let's start from scratch and change direction here. We can do it.

7. Impeach Bush and Cheney. If you don't agree, then you are soft on crime.

Happy holidays to you and yours.

May your holiday stockings be filled with

peace on earth and a

renewed respect for our Constitution.

Levin Statement at the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on Iraq

2006-11-17T11:45:00.000-08:00

11/15/06

Last week, the American people delivered a clear — indeed, a dramatic — message to the Administration, to the Congress, and to the Iraqi government that “stay the course” is not a strategy for success in Iraq. It was a message heard around the world.

The American people don’t accept the president’s recent assessment that, “absolutely, we’re winning” in Iraq. Nor should we.

The American people have said, forcefully, that they are impatient with Iraqi leaders who will not make the political compromises required to blunt the sectarian violence and unite the Iraqi people. They are impatient with Iraqi government leaders who have not disbanded the militias and death squads that are a plague on Iraqi society. And they have lost patience with the Iraqi leaders who won’t condemn Sunni-Shia enmity, tribal rivalries, and ethnic hatred.

America has given the Iraqi people the opportunity to build a new nation at the cost of nearly 3,000 American lives and over 20,000 wounded. But the American people do not want our valiant troops to get caught in a crossfire between Iraqis, if the Iraqis insist on squandering that opportunity through civil war and sectarian strife.

We were assured by the president over a year ago that, “As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.” Even though the Pentagon claims that almost 90 percent of the Iraqi Security Forces are now trained and equipped, our troop level remains about the same. We were momentarily hopeful when the Iraqi leaders signed a four-point agreement on October 2 to end the sectarian violence. That turned out to be another false hope.
Recently, Ambassador Khalilzad announced that Iraqi officials had agreed to a timeline for reaching benchmarks to confront the sectarian militias, to implement a reconciliation program, to share oil revenues, and to recommend changes to the constitution. Prime Minister Maliki repudiated that timeline the next day, providing additional evidence that the Iraqi political leaders do not understand that there is a limit to the blood and treasure that Americans are willing to spend, given the unwillingness of the Iraqis themselves to put their political house in order.

Our uniformed military leaders have repeatedly told us that there’s no military solution to the violence in Iraq and that a political agreement between the Iraqi sectarian factions themselves is the only way to end the violence. Just last month, at his October 25th press conference, President Bush said that, “In the end, the Iraqi people and their government will have to make the difficult decisions necessary to solve these problems.” In the end? We are three and one-half years into a conflict which has already lasted longer than the Korean conflict and almost as long as World War II. We should put the responsibility for Iraq’s future squarely where it belongs: on the Iraqis. We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves.

The only way for Iraqi leaders to squarely face that reality is for President Bush to tell them that the United States will begin a phased redeployment of our forces within four to six months. That is not precipitous. It is a responsible way to change the dynamic in Iraq, to stop the march down the path to full-blown civil war on which the Iraqis are now embarked. Yes, some U.S. troops would need to remain in Iraq for the limited missions of counterterrorism and training of Iraqi security forces and to provide logistical support and force protection. And, yes, we should also convene an international conference to support a political settlement and to provide resources for Iraq’s reconstruction.

We are grateful to our witnesses for their service to our nation. We are especially grateful and united in support of the brave troops who are serving us in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives

2006-11-15T19:17:00.000-08:00

Tuesday, November 14th, ...by Michael Moore

To My Conservative Brothers and Sisters,

I know you are dismayed and disheartened at the results of last week's election. You're worried that the country is heading toward a very bad place you don't want it to go. Your 12-year Republican Revolution has ended with so much yet to do, so many promises left unfulfilled. You are in a funk, and I understand.
Well, cheer up, my friends! Do not despair. I have good news for you. I, and the millions of others who are now in charge with our Democratic Congress, have a pledge we would like to make to you, a list of promises that we offer you because we value you as our fellow Americans. You deserve to know what we plan to do with our newfound power -- and, to be specific, what we will do to you and for you.
Thus, here is our Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives:
Dear Conservatives and Republicans,
I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:
1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.
2. We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider your behavior to be "different" or "immoral." Who you marry is none of our business. Love and be in love -- it's a wonderful gift.
3. We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you.
4. When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. They deserve to live. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie.
5. When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases that affect you and your loved ones, we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family, too.
6. Even though you have opposed environmental regulation, when we clean up our air and water, we, the Democratic majority, will let you, too, breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water.
7. Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you.
8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived.
9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours.
10. When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you -- and your employees -- that new wage, too. When women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too.
11. We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those beliefs into practice. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most radical religious beliefs ("Blessed are the poor," "Blessed are the peacemakers," "Love your enemies," "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God," and "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."). We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism -- starting with the fanaticism here at home, thus setting a good example for the rest of the world.
12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition.
I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one. Thank you for your years of service to this country and for giving us the opportunity to see if we can make things a bit better for our 300 million fellow Americans -- and for the rest of the world.
Signed,
Michael Mooremmflint@aol.com(Click here to sign the pledge)www.michaelmoore.com
P.S. Please feel free to pass this on.

2006-11-13T15:23:00.000-08:00

Join BlueNovember.Org

Thursday Afternoon

November 16, 2006

4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M.

Sanborn and Pine Grove
Port Huron, Michigan

This is a nonviolent, non-confrontational event.

We do not interfere with traffic, nor do
we engage in hostile interactions with passers by.

Signs will be available, but you may bring your own.

Out of the ashes

2006-11-08T16:36:00.000-08:00

On November 7 voters across the country called for the renaissance of the Common Good. Clearly, people chose to turn against the Republican party who:

misled us into an unjust war, a war that is a framework for greed, graft, and corruption; a war that has been a gold mine for profiteers, like Blackwater, Caci, Halliburton, Kellog, Brown and Root, and others; a war that, according to 16 Untied States intelligence agencies, emboldens the terrorists.

gave tax breaks to the wealthiest among us, people who, instead, should be paying their fair share of our commonwealth.

refused to move our country forward on issues like education, science, and health care.

failed to protect our land, air, and water.

failed to help millions of citizens devastated by the Katrina disaster.

failed to protectthe vote, instead they protected the manufacturers of unreliable electronic voting machines.

led an all out assault on the U.S. Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, our U.S. statutory laws, all of which have been the foundation of what is good about this country.

So now it is a new day, but it feels like more than that. It feels like the proverbial opportunity of a lifetime. We all must recognize this chance. There is no time to rest. Too much is at stake. We must heed the call of our Forefathers. Listen. Pay attention. Accept the opportunity to do what is right.

I know this is true. The midterm election of 2006 is a calling forth of our democratic ideals from under the suffocating weight of lies, corruption, tyranny, and greed. It is the rebirth of the quest for the Common Good. It is the renaissance of neighbors joining hands and working together again for each other and for the country we love.

As ordinary citizens, let us give wings to this phoenix by following through on every level. We want the best possible lives for our neighbors and for ourselves, but we can't have that until our sons and daughters are home from Iraq. Bringing our troops home will be the first gust of wind beneath the wings of our phoenix, and I can't wait to see her fly.

VOTE

2006-11-03T11:40:00.000-08:00

Tuesday, November 7, 2006

No apology necessary for Kerry's remarks

2006-10-31T17:34:00.000-08:00

The recent remarks made by John Kerry have been misrepresented. Here is what Kerry said:

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Clearly, Senator Kerry is referring to President George W. Bush, not the troops serving in our military. John Kerry served. Bush did not. Kerry has criticized the Bush administration's Iraq war strategies for quite some time, so this is simply an extension of that criticism. These remarks reflect Mr. Kerry's opinion that the president isn't the brightest bulb in the lamp. Simple as that.

Don't apologize, Mr. Kerry. Call them out on what will go down as one of the biggest blunders of any American president.