Monday, May 28, 2007
Sunday, May 27, 2007
In Memorium
SONG OF THOSE WHO DIED IN VAIN
Sit down and bargain
All you like, grizzled old foxes.
We’ll wall you up in a splendid palace
With food, wine, good beds and a good fire
Provided that you discuss, negotiate
For our and your children’s lives.
May all the wisdom of the universe
Converge to bless your minds
And guide you in the maze.
But outside in the cold we will be waiting for you,
The army of those who died in vain,
We of the Marne, of Montecassino,
Treblinka, Dresden and Hiroshima.
And with us will be
The leprous and the people with trachoma,
The Disappeared Ones of Buenos Aires,
Dead Cambodians and dying Ethiopians,
The Prague negotiators,
The bled-dry of Calcutta
The innocents slaughtered in Bologna.
Heaven help you if you come out disagreeing:
You’ll be clutched tight in our embrace.
We are invincible because we are the conquered,
Invulnerable because already dead;
We laugh at your missiles.
Sit down and bargain
Until your tongues are dry.
If the havoc and the shame continue
We’ll drown you in our putrefaction.
Primo Levi
Italian Chemist
Author
Auschwitz Survivor
Poem written 14 January 1985
(before Rwanda, Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur)
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Monday, May 21, 2007
Action Alert
Dear activists, colleagues, and friends,
The Gonzales hearings made plain for all to see that the highest law enforcement officer in the land is unwilling to tell the truth under oath.
Think about that.
He doesn't recall. He doesn't know. He evades, answering questions with questions, and yet, the President has not fired him. He continues to damage our country.
It's all there on TV for everyone to see, although few have the time or patience to watch. That's why we at Brave New Films have produced a 2 minute video (with an assist from George Bush) to boil the story down to its essence.
Watch it here: http://impeachgonzales.org/
Let's not be shy. Let's use the "i" word -- IMPEACHMENT. Say it, SHOUT it loud and clear. It has a good patriotic feel to it. And yes, the attorney general CAN be impeached. It is legal, it is proper, and it is time.
The Senate is expected to hold a "no confidence" vote on Gonzales sometime this week. We need to show them there is broad grassroots support to go further.
McJoan from DailyKOS notes the political importance: "Gonzales's refusal to resign and Bush's refusal to force it are part and parcel of the effort to protect Rove, Miers, and ultimately Bush. Which is precisely why Alberto Gonzales must be impeached."
So here is your ammunition for impeachment -- a video, a petition, a whole campaign to get the House Judiciary Committee to launch this action, NOW. We and our friends and partners at Democracy for America want and need your help.
Watch it here: http://impeachgonzales.org/
Don't just be angry, don't just be annoyed, don't yell at the ones you love. IMPEACH GONZALES.
Let's get to work! Watch the video and send it to everyone you know.
Democracy is a beautiful thing.
Robert Greenwald and the Brave New Films team
P.S. For some background on impeachment see this New York Times editorial from Mizzou law professor Frank Bowman.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
An open question for the President
The Department of Defense has identified 3,397 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war.
It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans over the weekend:
Mr. Bush, this is your:
What did you do this weekend?
GAUTIER, Aaron D., 19, Pfc., Army; Hampton, Va.; Second Infantry
Division.
HAMM, Jonathan V., 20, Pfc., Army; Baltimore; Second Infantry
Division.
PACKER, Steven M., 23, Sgt., Army; Clovis, Calif.; 10th
Mountain Division.
SCHOBER, Anthony J., 23, Sgt., Army; Reno, Nev.;
10th Mountain Division.
Mr. Bush, this is your:
What did you do this weekend?
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
For Mother's Day: Peace
Arise then...women of this day!
Arise, all women who have hearts!
Whether your baptism be of water or of tears!
Say firmly:"We will not have questions answered by irrelevant agencies,
Our husbands will not come to us,
reeking with carnage,
For caresses and applause.
Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn
All that we have been able to teach them
of charity, mercy and patience.
We, the women of one country,
Will be too tender of those of another country
To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs.
From the voice of a devastated
Earth a voice goes up withOur own.
It says: "Disarm!
Disarm!"
The sword of murder is not the balance of justice.
Blood does not wipe our dishonor,
Nor violence indicate possession.
As men have often forsaken the plough and the anvil
At the summons of war,
Let women now leave all that may be left of home
For a great and earnest day of counsel.
Let them meet first, as women,
to bewail and commemorate the dead.
Let them solemnly take counsel with each other
as to the means
Whereby the great human family can live in peace...
Each bearing after his own time the sacred impress,
not of Caesar,
But of God -
In the name of womanhood and humanity,
I earnestly ask
That a general congress of women without limit of nationality,
May be appointed and held at someplace deemed most convenient
And the earliest period consistent with its objects,
To promote the alliance of the different nationalities,
The amicable settlement of international questions,
The great and general interests of peace.
Julia Ward Howe
1870 Mother's Day Proclamation
UPDATE! For an EXCELLENT read on the real history of Mother's Day, go here.
UPDATE! For an EXCELLENT read on the real history of Mother's Day, go here.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Moving Beyond Anti-War Politics
ZNet CommentaryBy Phylis Bennis and Robert Jensen
As Congress sends its bill requiring partial troop withdrawals from Iraq to the White House for a certain veto, it has never been clearer that mobilizing against this war is necessary, but not enough.Congressional Democrats may be willing to stop there, but demanding the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq is only the first of our obligations to help create the conditions for real justice and peace in the Middle East and around the world. It's crucial that we also advocate for an entirely new foreign policy based on opposition to the long U.S. drive toward empire.
That first step is, of course, crucial. When 78 percent of the Iraqi people oppose the presence of U.S. troops and 61 percent support attacks on those troops, it's clear that our presence in the country is causing -- not preventing -- much of the violence. Pulling out U.S. troops (including the 100,000-plus mercenaries who back the U.S. military) won't eliminate all Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence, but it will remove the reason many Iraqis are fighting. That would take away the protective umbrella that the widely supported anti-occupation violence currently gives the real terrorists -- those engaged in killing civilians for political or sectarian reasons. Once U.S. forces are gone and the reason for the legitimate resistance to foreign occupation is eliminated, the ugly terrorist violence will be exposed for what it is - and it will be possible for Iraqis themselves to isolate the terrorists and eliminate them as a fighting force.
But what comes after a U.S. withdrawal? We clearly owe the Iraqi people massive reparations for the devastation our illegal invasion has brought. Only in the United States is that illegality questioned; in the rest of the world it's understood. Equally obvious around the world is that the decision to launch an aggressive war was rooted in the desire to expand U.S. military power in the strategically crucial oil-rich region, and that as a result the war fails every test of moral legitimacy.
As we organize against the occupation, we also must work to end U.S. support for Israeli occupation and try to prevent an aggressive war against Iran. But all of this is part of a larger obligation of U.S. citizens: We must challenge U.S. empire. The U.S. troop withdrawal and reparations should be accompanied by a declaration of a major change of course in U.S. foreign policy, especially in Iraq and the Middle East. We need a new foreign policy based on justice, relying on international law and the United Nations, rather than the assertion of might-makes-right.
This takes us beyond a critique of the mendacity of the Bush administration, to recognize that similar dreams of conquest and domination have animated every administration, albeit in different forms. From the darling of the anti-communist liberal elite (John F. Kennedy) and the champion of so-called "assertive multilateralism" (Bill Clinton), to the crude Republican realist (Richard Nixon) and the patron saint of the conservative right (Ronald Reagan), U.S. empire in the post-World War II era has been a distinctly bi-partisan effort.
In his 1980 State of the Union address, President Jimmy Carter called for domination of the Middle East: "An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force." In other words: We run the region and control the flow of its oil.
George W. Bush took earlier administrations' power plays to new heights of reckless militarism and unilateralism, seizing the moment after 9/11 to declare to all nations: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." In other words: We demand global capitulation.
The only way to transcend this ugly history is through an honest national dialogue and a promise of a sea change in U.S. policy.
Look around the world at the results of U.S. strategies. Rhetoric about democracy and free trade has masked the enforcement of political and economic subordination to the United States and U.S.-based multinational corporations. The people of Latin America, much of Africa and the Middle East, and many parts of Asia can offer compelling testimony to the impact of those policies, enforced now through more than 700 U.S. military bases spread across the globe in over 130 countries.
Such empires are typically brought down from outside, with great violence. But we have another option, as citizens of that empire who understand how this pathology of power damages our country as well as the world. Imagine what would be possible if we -- ordinary citizens of this latest empire -- could build a movement that gave politicians no choice but to do the right thing.
Imagine what would be possible in the world if an anti-empire movement were strong enough to make it clear that ending military violence requires a just distribution of the resources of this world.
Imagine what is possible if we work to make inevitable one day what seems improbable today -- the justice that makes possible real peace.
Phyllis Bennis is a Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and author of Challenging Empire: How People, Governments and the UN Defy U.S. Power. She can be reached at pbennis@ips-dc.org
Robert Jensen is a professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin and author of Citizens of Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity. He can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
1.2.3.4 We Won't Take It Anymore!
Okay.
Here's the deal.
The California State Univeristy Board of Trustees proposes a 10% hike in student fees for 2007-08. If this fee increase is realized, this means that students will be paying almost twice as much as they were in 2002.
Meanwhile, classes are more crowded, it is harder and harder to enroll in required courses, and student services are being slashed.
So yesterday, we had a big rally on campus, including a huge march through campus and the halls of the Administration building, expressing our collective outrage that six-figure executives think it's appropriate that:
• Last fall, the CSU Trustees awarded campus presidents and the top administrators in the Chancellor’s Office 19% increases in compensation -- including salary increases averaging 13.7% per person.
• At their January 2007 meeting, CSU Trustees will vote on another 4% salary increase proposed for the same executives.
• With these raises:
-the average 2-year salary increase = $42,000
-salary paid to the top execs in 06/07 will be 19% more than in 04/05
• By contrast, since 2002, CSU faculty received only a 3.5% raise, in July 2005.
• Compensation increases awarded to some executives in 2005 totaled more than the annual salary paid to full-time faculty.
Here's the deal.
The California State Univeristy Board of Trustees proposes a 10% hike in student fees for 2007-08. If this fee increase is realized, this means that students will be paying almost twice as much as they were in 2002.
Meanwhile, classes are more crowded, it is harder and harder to enroll in required courses, and student services are being slashed.
So yesterday, we had a big rally on campus, including a huge march through campus and the halls of the Administration building, expressing our collective outrage that six-figure executives think it's appropriate that:
• Last fall, the CSU Trustees awarded campus presidents and the top administrators in the Chancellor’s Office 19% increases in compensation -- including salary increases averaging 13.7% per person.
• At their January 2007 meeting, CSU Trustees will vote on another 4% salary increase proposed for the same executives.
• With these raises:
-the average 2-year salary increase = $42,000
-salary paid to the top execs in 06/07 will be 19% more than in 04/05
• By contrast, since 2002, CSU faculty received only a 3.5% raise, in July 2005.
• Compensation increases awarded to some executives in 2005 totaled more than the annual salary paid to full-time faculty.
One of my classmates, Jay Tena shared this message with the audience. Oh how I wish I had a way to embed the audio!
First, I would like to thank all of you who showed up in support of our
cause which is to address the rampant increase in student fees. Without you, we
would not have a cause. Without you, we would not have a university to attend.
You are the most important people here and I appreciate the chance to talk to
you. This rally is about the misappropriation of funds endorsed by those in
power that have their own agenda, padding their bank accounts at the cost of
student’s education. This action is not congruent with such ethical issues as
accountability, equality, and the right of every individual to achieve their
highest potential. For many this includes a college education. For many in the
Inland Empire, college is the one way to pull themselves out of the cycle of
poverty that exists in our community. Here are just a few of the problems that
exist at all 23 California State Universities:
1) Chancellor Charles Reed and the Board of Trustees are requiring students to pay an additional 10% increase per year in student fees which have been raised 76%
since 2002. In addition, they plan to keep raising fees by 10% until 2010. This
not only insures that the marginalized population in the Inland Empire will lose
the ability to receive a college education, but it also effects the middle class
where students must work a full time job, support their families , and attempt
their dream of a college degree, which would allow them to support their
families at a higher level.
2) Often, students can’t get the classes they need to graduate on time because the administration will not allot money for additional full-time professors.
3) In addition, the lecturers they hire don’t have offices so students can’t get valuable 1:1 time to address any questions they may have about their course work. This is an attempt to save money as lectures are paid very little money and don’t quality for benefits for many years while working for the university.
4) Briefly, I would like to address one of the biggest atrocities the administration is proposing. CSU administration and the Board of Trustees intend to increase the student population enrollment by 2.5% while cutting or significantly reducing funds for student outreach programs such as the Educational Opportunity Program, better know as the EOP Program. Here is the Mission Statement of the EOP Program:
The mission of the EOP program is to provide access to higher education for
historically low-income, first generation disadvantaged students who have the
potential to succeed at the university level. EOP recruits, retains and
graduates students by providing a comprehensive program of support services
which include admission, academic advisement, career and personal counseling,
tutoring, financial assistance and graduate school information.
To lose this vital program would be a disgrace to our community and our school. We
must not allow budget cuts to affect this service to those in San Bernardo and
Riverside Counties, thus perpetuating the cycle of poverty in our community.
There is some hope however, a Joint Legislative Audit Committee voted
unanimously to explore all 23 CSU’s campuses to find how much money was paid
from state appropriations and student tuition and find where that money was
spent. As much as 4 million dollars in special perks and extra compensation has
been paid to departing CSU officials without public disclosure by the chancellor
or the Board of Trustees. State Senator Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, is pushing
a bill through the Senate to compel CSU trustees meet in public when discussing
and deciding executive compensation issues.
In summery, here are a few of our demands:
1) Roll back student fees to the 2002, 2003 level
2) Fund more classes not executives
3) Increase funds for outreach and retention programs such as the EOP Program
4) SHOW US THE MONEY. Let CSU’s allocation of funds be public record to
guarantee above the board policies
5) And PUT STUDENTS FIRST
Finally, I would like to thank the California Faculty Association, the professors and staff at all 23 CSU campuses who support our cause, and the students who are advocating for this ethical issue. Let our CSU campuses reflect a sterling example of
people working together for a common goal; equality and accountability and a
quality education.
While student after student addressed the crowd and gave their personal testimony, CSU President Albert Karnig, who makes an annual salary of $237,072, and also receives an annual housing allowance of $50,000 and an annual car allowance of $12,000, requested to speak to us.
But we didn't let him.
There is nothing that he could say to excuse the misappropriation of student resources.
Here I am with a few of my MSW's to be. I'm the one on the left with my handmade sign.
Monday, April 23, 2007
What We Need To Do
I spent some time in San Diego this weekend at the California NOW conference. It was a whirlwind trip for me, filled with lots of emotional ups and downs. The experience is worthy of a longer, detailed post, but I am buried in homework and reading assignments, so here are the highlights:
The theme of this year's conference was Crossing Borders: Examining the Walls We Build Around Ourselves.
I attended four workshops - The Commonality of Oppression, Immigration is a Feminist Issue, Marriage Equality and current LGBT Legislation, and Feminists Who Changed California.
I had the opportunity to speak briefly with Dolores Huerta, and shared a great lunch with Bluegrrrl. This was a special treat for me, as she is the first of my blogging community that I have met in "real life!" Getting to know more about her makes me love and admire her even more!
Here we are with Dolores. This picture is particularly meaningful to me as today is the anniversary of Cesar Chavez's death. It saddens me that I did not develop a political consciousness in time to have marched with him in the struggle to bring social and economic justice to our farm workers, and I consider it an honor to have had the privilege to know Dolores.
The elections for our executive leadership resulted in an historic victory for grassroots leadership of our state NOW organization. I was proud to support the young slate and I am excited by the promise of possibility for feminist activism in California.
The theme of this year's conference was Crossing Borders: Examining the Walls We Build Around Ourselves.
I attended four workshops - The Commonality of Oppression, Immigration is a Feminist Issue, Marriage Equality and current LGBT Legislation, and Feminists Who Changed California.
I had the opportunity to speak briefly with Dolores Huerta, and shared a great lunch with Bluegrrrl. This was a special treat for me, as she is the first of my blogging community that I have met in "real life!" Getting to know more about her makes me love and admire her even more!
Here we are with Dolores. This picture is particularly meaningful to me as today is the anniversary of Cesar Chavez's death. It saddens me that I did not develop a political consciousness in time to have marched with him in the struggle to bring social and economic justice to our farm workers, and I consider it an honor to have had the privilege to know Dolores.
The elections for our executive leadership resulted in an historic victory for grassroots leadership of our state NOW organization. I was proud to support the young slate and I am excited by the promise of possibility for feminist activism in California.
You can read about our newly elected officers, who will officially begin work for the organization in May, by going here. And please visit this website, run by our new Vice President of Membership!
And then, please read this post. Robin Tyler, founder of The Equality Campaign, made some very good points at this weekend's workshop on marriage equality. She said, "There is no such thing as just kidding. Humor is the razor sharp edge of the truth... You have to believe it in order to make it funny." McCain's "joke" should cost him his party's nomination and scare the rest of us peace-lovers into action to do more to stop this madness.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Some of What's Wrong With America
So, I was checking out some of my little sister's MySpace friends and found a young Marine (24) who is stationed in Cuba. He has a blog entry that states, in part,
to which one of his friends replied:
"I have already started saying "mon" after everything. Where I work is
very good. Good people all around. It is nice being back in a radio
station so I can listen to all the new music. I missed that a lot while in
Illinois. I am getting myself all trained up on the shit down here and I
am sort of my own boss so I don't have to worry too much on that. But if
something goes bad it's on my ass to make sure I can fix. Sort of
fun. Well that's my update of love from Gitmo. If you'd like to send
me stuff (a letter would rock) just hit me up with an email and I'll give you my
addy. I do hope everyone is doing just grand and I hope to hear from some
of you guys. Warmest wishes from my tropical paradise in a communist
country..."
to which one of his friends replied:
Hey Toney do you get to beat up prisoners in your spare time? That would
be awsome! Hope all is well. If you ever get close to Castro ask him
what the secret to a long life is. He has been around forever! Take
it easy, Kyle (emphasis mine)
"I don't recall"
From Think Progress:
What emerged from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday was a picture of an inept manager who was, at best, unaware of major personnel decisions being made within his department, and at worst, complicit in the Bush administration's plan to politicize the ranks of the U.S. attorneys. He uttered the phrase "'I don't recall' and its variants ('I have no recollection,' 'I have no memory') 64 times," claiming, "I don't have anything to hide." Yet at the same time, Gonzales asked the Senate to trust him: "I believe I can continue to be effective as the attorney general of the United States." Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) wondered, "Since you apparently knew very little about the performance about the replaced United States attorneys, how can you testify that the judgment ought to stand?" After a full day of testimony, what is clear is that the Attorney General has repeatedly lied to the American public. Gonzales yesterday promised, "The moment I believe I can no longer be effective I will resign as attorney general." President Bill Clinton told Larry King last night on CNN, "The best thing he could do for this president that he served so loyally is to step aside."
LIES AND INCONSISTENCIES: Throughout this scandal, Gonzales has simultaneously said that he is "ultimately accountable and responsible for what happens within the department," while at the same time shirking responsibility: "I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on." Yet documents show that Gonzales was involved and approved plans to fire several of the prosecutors in an hour-long meeting on Nov. 27. Earlier in the month, Gonzales former chief of staff Kyle Sampson told congressional investigators that the Attorney General was "inaccurate," or "at least not complete" in asserting that he had no role in the prosecutor purge deliberations. Yesterday, Gonzales finally conceded the obvious -- that he was involved -- but still failed to fully explain why at least eight highly-respected U.S. attorneys were fired. Under questioning from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), he also admitted that he "made these decisions without ever looking at the performance reports" of the U.S. attorneys. He said that at the time he approved the firings, he didn't even know why two of the prosecutors -- Daniel Bogden of Nevada and Margaret Chiara of Michigan -- were on the list. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called Gonzales's explanations "a stretch," adding that he thought the prosecutors were fired because of personality conflicts and "made up reasons."
RUNNING OUT THE CLOCK: Much of this controversy centers around whether the Bush administration intended to install conservative loyalists as U.S. attorneys, taking advantage of a little-noticed provision slipped into the Patriot Act in 2005, which allows the Attorney General to name "interim" prosecutors who can serve indefinitely without Senate approval. On Jan. 18, Gonzales assured the Senate Judiciary Committee, "I am fully committed...to ensure that, with respect to every United States attorney position in this country, we will have a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed United States attorney." This statement has turned out to be untrue. In early December, Gonzales allowed Sampson to go forward with a plan to avoid Senate input on the nomination of Karl Rove-protege Tim Griffin as U.S. attorney in Arkansas. But then in a meeting on Dec. 15, Gonzales promised Sen. Mark Pryor (R-AR) that he would "look for someone else" instead of Griffin, in response to Pryor's objections. Despite this promise, Sampson then sent out an e-mail four days later to carry out the Griffin plan" "We should gum this to death. [A]sk the senators to give Tim a chance...then we can tell them we'll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, evaluate the recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock." Pryor said "he still believes the attorney general lied to him by stating that he intended to seek Senate confirmation for Griffin." BLAMING CAREER PROFESSIONALS: "The Department of Justice should never be reduced to another political arm of the White House -- this White House or any White House," Leahy said yesterday. Yet under Gonzales, this characterization is exactly what the Justice Department has become. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) yesterday noted that during the Clinton administration, there were just four people -- the president, the vice president, the deputy White House counsel and the White House counsel -- who could participate in these kind of discussions with the Justice Department "regarding pending criminal investigations and criminal cases." But under the Bush administration, there are 417 White House officials eligible to have such discussions, blurring the line between justice and politics. Gonzales tried to push some of the blame on to the career professionals in the Justice Department, stating, "And all the credit, everything that we do, the credit goes to them. And so, when there are attacks against the department, you're attacking the career professionals." The career professionals have nothing to do with the scandals Gonzales and the political appointees at the Justice Department have created. In 2005, Bush's political appointees reversed the career staff's recommendations to challenge a Georgia photo-ID law that a federal judge later likened to a "modern-day poll tax." More recently, a "Group of Concerned Justice Department Employees" wrote an anonymous letter revealing that "the non-political ranks of Justice employees...are consistently and methodically being eroded by partisan politics."
VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE: After the hearing yesterday, the White House issued a statement saying that the President was "pleased with the Attorney General's testimony." He was the only one who came away pleased though. "[S]everal very loyal Republicans made it clear to CNN that they were really dripping with disappointment." Two senior White House aides also characterized Gonzales's testimony to CNN as "going down in flames. ... One prominent Republican describing watching his testimony as 'clubbing a baby seal.'" Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) called on Gonzales to resign: "I believe you ought to suffer the consequences that these others have suffered, and I believe the best way to put this behind us is your resignation." Sixty-three percent of the American public believes Gonzales is lying about his role in the prosecutor purge and 52 percent believe he needs to step down.
To read the very best blog post I've read on this issue so far, go HERE.
What emerged from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday was a picture of an inept manager who was, at best, unaware of major personnel decisions being made within his department, and at worst, complicit in the Bush administration's plan to politicize the ranks of the U.S. attorneys. He uttered the phrase "'I don't recall' and its variants ('I have no recollection,' 'I have no memory') 64 times," claiming, "I don't have anything to hide." Yet at the same time, Gonzales asked the Senate to trust him: "I believe I can continue to be effective as the attorney general of the United States." Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) wondered, "Since you apparently knew very little about the performance about the replaced United States attorneys, how can you testify that the judgment ought to stand?" After a full day of testimony, what is clear is that the Attorney General has repeatedly lied to the American public. Gonzales yesterday promised, "The moment I believe I can no longer be effective I will resign as attorney general." President Bill Clinton told Larry King last night on CNN, "The best thing he could do for this president that he served so loyally is to step aside."
LIES AND INCONSISTENCIES: Throughout this scandal, Gonzales has simultaneously said that he is "ultimately accountable and responsible for what happens within the department," while at the same time shirking responsibility: "I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on." Yet documents show that Gonzales was involved and approved plans to fire several of the prosecutors in an hour-long meeting on Nov. 27. Earlier in the month, Gonzales former chief of staff Kyle Sampson told congressional investigators that the Attorney General was "inaccurate," or "at least not complete" in asserting that he had no role in the prosecutor purge deliberations. Yesterday, Gonzales finally conceded the obvious -- that he was involved -- but still failed to fully explain why at least eight highly-respected U.S. attorneys were fired. Under questioning from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), he also admitted that he "made these decisions without ever looking at the performance reports" of the U.S. attorneys. He said that at the time he approved the firings, he didn't even know why two of the prosecutors -- Daniel Bogden of Nevada and Margaret Chiara of Michigan -- were on the list. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called Gonzales's explanations "a stretch," adding that he thought the prosecutors were fired because of personality conflicts and "made up reasons."
RUNNING OUT THE CLOCK: Much of this controversy centers around whether the Bush administration intended to install conservative loyalists as U.S. attorneys, taking advantage of a little-noticed provision slipped into the Patriot Act in 2005, which allows the Attorney General to name "interim" prosecutors who can serve indefinitely without Senate approval. On Jan. 18, Gonzales assured the Senate Judiciary Committee, "I am fully committed...to ensure that, with respect to every United States attorney position in this country, we will have a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed United States attorney." This statement has turned out to be untrue. In early December, Gonzales allowed Sampson to go forward with a plan to avoid Senate input on the nomination of Karl Rove-protege Tim Griffin as U.S. attorney in Arkansas. But then in a meeting on Dec. 15, Gonzales promised Sen. Mark Pryor (R-AR) that he would "look for someone else" instead of Griffin, in response to Pryor's objections. Despite this promise, Sampson then sent out an e-mail four days later to carry out the Griffin plan" "We should gum this to death. [A]sk the senators to give Tim a chance...then we can tell them we'll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, evaluate the recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock." Pryor said "he still believes the attorney general lied to him by stating that he intended to seek Senate confirmation for Griffin." BLAMING CAREER PROFESSIONALS: "The Department of Justice should never be reduced to another political arm of the White House -- this White House or any White House," Leahy said yesterday. Yet under Gonzales, this characterization is exactly what the Justice Department has become. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) yesterday noted that during the Clinton administration, there were just four people -- the president, the vice president, the deputy White House counsel and the White House counsel -- who could participate in these kind of discussions with the Justice Department "regarding pending criminal investigations and criminal cases." But under the Bush administration, there are 417 White House officials eligible to have such discussions, blurring the line between justice and politics. Gonzales tried to push some of the blame on to the career professionals in the Justice Department, stating, "And all the credit, everything that we do, the credit goes to them. And so, when there are attacks against the department, you're attacking the career professionals." The career professionals have nothing to do with the scandals Gonzales and the political appointees at the Justice Department have created. In 2005, Bush's political appointees reversed the career staff's recommendations to challenge a Georgia photo-ID law that a federal judge later likened to a "modern-day poll tax." More recently, a "Group of Concerned Justice Department Employees" wrote an anonymous letter revealing that "the non-political ranks of Justice employees...are consistently and methodically being eroded by partisan politics."
VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE: After the hearing yesterday, the White House issued a statement saying that the President was "pleased with the Attorney General's testimony." He was the only one who came away pleased though. "[S]everal very loyal Republicans made it clear to CNN that they were really dripping with disappointment." Two senior White House aides also characterized Gonzales's testimony to CNN as "going down in flames. ... One prominent Republican describing watching his testimony as 'clubbing a baby seal.'" Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) called on Gonzales to resign: "I believe you ought to suffer the consequences that these others have suffered, and I believe the best way to put this behind us is your resignation." Sixty-three percent of the American public believes Gonzales is lying about his role in the prosecutor purge and 52 percent believe he needs to step down.
To read the very best blog post I've read on this issue so far, go HERE.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
As Promised
Here's a little background:
I'm a member of the National Organization for Women, which is divided up into lots of smaller chapters around the country. California is the only state that has a state-level organization, California NOW. Our state organization serves as a way to unify the state's more than 100,000 NOW members.
California NOW has an annual conference, and at this year's meetings we will be holding elections for our executive leadership. There are many positions up for grabs, but there are only two slates, the incumbants and the challengers.
Both slates have their own campaigns and their own websites. This year's campaign has become heated, as all campaigns do, because those who currently hold executive positions have a vested interest in retaining their titles.
This morning I received this email:
To which I replied:
Dear Ms. Salter,
This brief message is in response to your passionate call for my support of your candidacy for president on CANOW. I'd like to share some of my reactions to your message.
First, the subject line and the header of your correspondence is deceptive. You write as if your message is coming from the organization when it is really a cleverly disguised campaign plea. Your campaign's attempt to use the legitimacy of CANOW to garner votes is dishonest and unethical.
Your message is written to appeal to fear, fear that my feminist organization is going to be ruined unless I vote for you. This is an elementary strategy. Your message tells me nothing of what you have done in your current position or anything about your unique vision for the future of my organization.
You say that the need for change is great, and yet you encourage me to support you and maintain the status quo by reelecting you.
Perhaps most egregious, you have used your personal access to the public contact information of our member organization to your unfair and perhaps illegal advantage. In fact, CANOW's privacy statement, taken from the official website reads: "We respect your privacy! Any and all the information collected on this site will be kept strictly confidential and will not be sold, reused, rented, disclosed, or loaned! Any information you give us will be held with the utmost care and will not be used in ways that you have not consented to..." I certainly did not consent for you to use my membership contact information for your campaign purposes.
There are some portions of your message that I do agree with. We do need grassroots participation in CANOW. We do need to encourage our membership to vote. These two ideals should be distributed widely. Thus, I am posting both your message to me, and my response, in my public forum: http://melissamsw.blogspot.com.
Please remove me from your personal email distribution list.
Sincerely,
Melissa
UPDATE: The election results are in! Congratulations to the NewNOW slate for their victory! We look forward to many exciting, progressive changes as we work together to promote feminist ideals in California.
I'm a member of the National Organization for Women, which is divided up into lots of smaller chapters around the country. California is the only state that has a state-level organization, California NOW. Our state organization serves as a way to unify the state's more than 100,000 NOW members.
California NOW has an annual conference, and at this year's meetings we will be holding elections for our executive leadership. There are many positions up for grabs, but there are only two slates, the incumbants and the challengers.
Both slates have their own campaigns and their own websites. This year's campaign has become heated, as all campaigns do, because those who currently hold executive positions have a vested interest in retaining their titles.
This morning I received this email:
SUBJECT: Urgent Action Requested -- CANOW members
please distribute widely and PLEASE take the time to vote this Saturday.
READ MORE: www.CaliforniaNOW.org
Dear
Fellow CANOW Member:
Do you want CANOW to remain grassroots? If so, it is
time to protect the grassroots of California NOW. Your attendance, before 4:30
this Saturday in San Diego is urgently requested. Your vote is critically
important at this pivotal stage in NOW history. In our forty years, NOW chapters
have always operated with elected, not permanent leadership. With the potential
exception of our very own chapter, no NOW chapter allows unelected permanent
leaders. CANOW is in the process of changing into a conventional nonprofit
(where one person as executive director or president stays on permanently
without term limits). There was a lawsuit 30 years ago at the national level to
prevent converting NOW this way from its grassroots organizational structure and
several California chapters have assembled to do the same for our chapter.
After one term in office and witnessing the CANOW administration from
the inside our elected president, Kim Salter, has determined that a decade long
downturn in membership, over 7 years without a financial audit, board
stalemates, almost 50 cents of every dollar donated going to pay telemarketers,
and organizational transition from grassroots to centrally operated is ready for
substantive change. The need for change and authoritative leadership is great.
We have let a few leaders invert the NOW grassroots model and operate under
highly discretionary permanent leadership and in violation of our organization's
charter.
The Kim Salter slate is committed to correcting this divergence
and re-establishing the grassroots of CANOW. We are a group of qualified
candidates who want to turn NOW back around in a positive direction and preserve
the GRASSROOTS. Please vote to save CANOW by supporting the Kim Salter slate.
In Sisterhood,
The Kim Salter Slate
President, Kimberly Salter,
current CA NOW President
VP Action, Gloria Johnson, San Diego County NOW
Board Delegate
VP Membership, Nan Leuschel, San Francisco NOW Board Member
VP Diversity, Mona Lisa Wallace, recent San Francisco NOW President
Treasurer, Heather Karberg, Orange County NOW Board member
Secretary,
Nadia Islam, VP Racial and Ethnic Diversity
The Election
4:30
p.m. Saturday, April 21
Holiday Inn Bayside
4875 North Harbor Drive
San Diego, CA
619-224-3621
You must already be a member of NOW
to vote, and you must receive credentials on Saturday, April 21, prior to 5:00
pm. Be sure to arrive before 4:30 pm on Saturday and get in the credential line
early to be ready to vote.
Chapters Endorsing the Salter Slate (Partial
list)
LA Now
Oakland/East Bay
Orange County
San Diego County
San Francisco
San Gabriel Valley/Whittier
"It is against
National NOW policy to have permanent leadership -- members vote on and elect
our leaders because NOW is a small "d" democratic organization. Picture us as an
upside pyramid – members at the top, then chapters, then states." Kim Gandy,
president of NOW
"I also believe very strongly in wide latitude for
chapters - within the broad Statement of Purpose of NOW - and minimum 'control'
by state or national full-time, or 'permanent' leaders. A movement can survive
and thrive only when it makes room for new voices and new leadership."
Aileen Hernandez, founding NOW member and 2nd NOW President
READ MORE: www.CaliforniaNOW.org
To which I replied:
Dear Ms. Salter,
This brief message is in response to your passionate call for my support of your candidacy for president on CANOW. I'd like to share some of my reactions to your message.
First, the subject line and the header of your correspondence is deceptive. You write as if your message is coming from the organization when it is really a cleverly disguised campaign plea. Your campaign's attempt to use the legitimacy of CANOW to garner votes is dishonest and unethical.
Your message is written to appeal to fear, fear that my feminist organization is going to be ruined unless I vote for you. This is an elementary strategy. Your message tells me nothing of what you have done in your current position or anything about your unique vision for the future of my organization.
You say that the need for change is great, and yet you encourage me to support you and maintain the status quo by reelecting you.
Perhaps most egregious, you have used your personal access to the public contact information of our member organization to your unfair and perhaps illegal advantage. In fact, CANOW's privacy statement, taken from the official website reads: "We respect your privacy! Any and all the information collected on this site will be kept strictly confidential and will not be sold, reused, rented, disclosed, or loaned! Any information you give us will be held with the utmost care and will not be used in ways that you have not consented to..." I certainly did not consent for you to use my membership contact information for your campaign purposes.
There are some portions of your message that I do agree with. We do need grassroots participation in CANOW. We do need to encourage our membership to vote. These two ideals should be distributed widely. Thus, I am posting both your message to me, and my response, in my public forum: http://melissamsw.blogspot.com.
Please remove me from your personal email distribution list.
Sincerely,
Melissa
UPDATE: The election results are in! Congratulations to the NewNOW slate for their victory! We look forward to many exciting, progressive changes as we work together to promote feminist ideals in California.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
In Solidarity
As many of my regular readers are aware, I am a graduate student. The increasing demands of my program, in fact, keep me from spending more time in bloggerland, either writing my own thoughts, or reading and commenting on all of yours. When I returned to school, after a seven year absence, I had no idea what I was getting myself into. And now, three weeks into my third quarter, with midterms just around the corner, the daily three-hour commute which last August I was sure would be "no big deal," has become just the opposite.
To inspire myself, I have taken to sticking inspirational quotations or positive aspirations in the cover of my school binder. So, on a day when I'll have to get up and give a presentation, I'll print out a beautiful rendition of Maggie Kuhn's "Speak your mind, even if your voice shakes." And I will read it over and over again, and I think of her, organizing the Gray Panthers, and what an amazing woman she must have been.
Sometimes my binder cover displays song lyrics. Pink's "Dear Mr. President" was in my binder for several weeks, actually, until I finally had to remove it. This occurred when I became so disgusted with Bu$h that I could no longer feign the respect the title "Mr. President" implies.
Today my binder cover housed a simple yellow piece of paper.
It said
Day of Silence:
Please understand my reasons for not speaking today. I am participating in the Day of Silence, a national youth movement protesting the silence faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their allies. My deliberate silence echoes that silence, which is caused by harassment, prejudice, and discrimination. I believe that ending the silence is the first step toward fighting these injustices.
Think about the voices you are not hearing today.
That's a good message, to think about what we DO NOT hear, either because we do not allow the voices to exist, or because we simply choose not to listen to them. This is the definition of heterosexual privilege. The beneficiaries of oppression are not obliged to acknowledge the oppressed.
It saddens me deeply to have found these headlines this evening:
Vandalized school hews to Day of Silence
SSF High School Blanketed With Graffiti
Indiana school goes on lockdown on Day of Silence
Rio Linda High students suspended over Day of Silence protest
However, I am heartened to read the positive accounts, the stories of hundreds of thousands of young men and women, students much younger than myself, participating on this eleventh annual youth-led protest. These are our future leaders and collectively represent some of the best things about America. They are our promise.
I stand in solidarity with them.
To inspire myself, I have taken to sticking inspirational quotations or positive aspirations in the cover of my school binder. So, on a day when I'll have to get up and give a presentation, I'll print out a beautiful rendition of Maggie Kuhn's "Speak your mind, even if your voice shakes." And I will read it over and over again, and I think of her, organizing the Gray Panthers, and what an amazing woman she must have been.
Sometimes my binder cover displays song lyrics. Pink's "Dear Mr. President" was in my binder for several weeks, actually, until I finally had to remove it. This occurred when I became so disgusted with Bu$h that I could no longer feign the respect the title "Mr. President" implies.
Today my binder cover housed a simple yellow piece of paper.
It said
Day of Silence:
Please understand my reasons for not speaking today. I am participating in the Day of Silence, a national youth movement protesting the silence faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their allies. My deliberate silence echoes that silence, which is caused by harassment, prejudice, and discrimination. I believe that ending the silence is the first step toward fighting these injustices.
Think about the voices you are not hearing today.
That's a good message, to think about what we DO NOT hear, either because we do not allow the voices to exist, or because we simply choose not to listen to them. This is the definition of heterosexual privilege. The beneficiaries of oppression are not obliged to acknowledge the oppressed.
It saddens me deeply to have found these headlines this evening:
Vandalized school hews to Day of Silence
SSF High School Blanketed With Graffiti
Indiana school goes on lockdown on Day of Silence
Rio Linda High students suspended over Day of Silence protest
However, I am heartened to read the positive accounts, the stories of hundreds of thousands of young men and women, students much younger than myself, participating on this eleventh annual youth-led protest. These are our future leaders and collectively represent some of the best things about America. They are our promise.
I stand in solidarity with them.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Happy Activist Birthday...
...To my hero, Dolores Huerta. She is a living example of the kind of woman I aspire to be.
Monday, April 09, 2007
War, An Update
From Center For American Progress Action Fund:
Four years ago today, U.S.-led coalition forces marched into Baghdad and toppled the statue of Saddam Hussein, marking the "liberation" of Iraq. "Gone are the euphoric April 9 cheers of 'Good, Good, Bush' praising U.S. President George W. Bush for ousting the regime. Angry chants of 'Down with Bush' are a frequent background to brutal Shiite and Sunni sectarian strife." "The Americans call the 9th of April the liberation of Baghdad," said one man who identified himself as Alaa, "but it was just an invasion, and liberated the city from Saddam for them, not for us." "I really regret bringing down the statue," said Kadhim al-Jubouri, an Iraqi weightlifter who was enlisted to help symbolically bring down the statute in 2003. "The Americans are worse than the dictatorship. Every day is worse than the previous day." In a harsh condemnation of the U.S. mismanagement of Iraq, former Iraqi government minister Ali Allawi writes, "The corroded and corrupt state of Saddam was replaced by the corroded, inefficient, incompetent and corrupt state of the new order." Symbolic of the nation's current lack of security, the cities of Baghdad and Najaf have declared bans on vehicle traffic today, in an attempt to stave off any attacks on the anniversary. Tens of thousands of Iraqis draped themselves in Iraqi flags and marched through the streets of two Shiite holy cities Monday in a demonstration against the U.S. presence in Iraq. Salah al-Obaydi, an organizer of the protest, said, "We're hoping that by next year's anniversary, we will be an independent and liberated Iraq with full sovereignty." The Center for American Progress has a plan to accomplish that, and do so in a responsible way that serves the security interests of both the United States and the Iraqis.
SURGE SPREADS VIOLENCE: In the early stages of Bush's escalation strategy, "the daily bloodshed shows no let-up." Ten U.S. soldiers were killed this past weekend, along with at least 69 Iraqis. The escalation strategy, which officially began on Feb. 14 and sent 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq, has shown "little sign" of "accomplishing its main purpose: to create an island of stability in which Sunni Arabs, Shiite Arabs and Kurds can try to figure out how to run the country together. ... The rate of American deaths in [Baghdad] over the first seven weeks of the security plan has nearly doubled from the previous period, though it has stayed roughly the same over all, decreasing in other parts of the country as troops have focused on the capital." Because of the escalation, "death squad killings have been reduced in Baghdad, but car bombings in the city have continued and violence has surged in the regions just outside the capital." The American military acknowledges that much of the drop in the sectarian executions "has come because of decreased activity by Shiite militias and death squads, especially the powerful Mahdi Army militia that claims allegiance to the cleric Muqtada al-Sadr." Some of the Shiite militias appear to have "decided to refrain from carrying out revenge killings," allowing the U.S.-led coalition to carry out the fight against Sunni militants. "You have the enemy trying to show it is still strong and able to move and stir fear in the population," U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Christopher Garver said Sunday. "We anticipated a movement of enemy forces and violence to the north, south, east and west of Baghdad."
TERRORISTS ADOPT NEW TACTICS: In his Easter Sunday message, Pope Benedict XVI said, "Nothing positive comes from Iraq, torn apart by continual slaughter as the civil population flees." Terrorists in Iraq have adopted new tactics in response to the Bush administration's escalation. Last week, the U.S. military confirmed that an Army helicopter went down south of Baghdad, marking at least nine U.S. helicopters that have crashed or been brought down by hostile fire this year in Iraq. Also this weekend, "a suspected al-Qaida in Iraq suicide bomber smashed a truck loaded with TNT and toxic chlorine gas into a police checkpoint in Ramadi on Friday, killing at least 27 people -- the ninth such attack since the group's first known use of a chemical weapon in January." "January and February were particularly bad months for car bombing deaths; nearly 1,100 were killed in February alone. That number dropped to 783 in March, still high compared with months earlier in the war, according to an American military official. But the overall number of bombings actually increased: there were 108 car bombs that either detonated or were disarmed in March, a record for the war." "And in a new tactic, both Shiite and Sunni militants have been burning down homes and shops in the provinces in recent months." One American private described the fight this way: "The insurgents, they see what we're doing and we see what they're doing. Then we get ahead, then they figure out what we've done and they get ahead. It's like a game of cat and mouse. It's just a really, really smart mouse."
SADR'S RESISTANCE: Prominent Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr exhorted Iraqi security forces on Sunday to unite with his militiamen against the American military. Sadr, who has laid low during the troop surge, urged his militia members to "stop fighting and killing because that is what our enemy and your enemy and even God's enemy hope for." The head of his bloc in the Iraqi parliament, Nassar Rubaie, insisted that the movement was committed to nonviolent resistance. "We are now at the stage of political action," Rubaie said. "Peaceful means is the right way and has proved to be correct." Iraq war proponent Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) claimed that Sadr's statement proves the escalation is working. "He is not calling for a resurgence of sectarian conflict. He's striking a nationalist chord," Lieberman said. "He's acknowledging that the surge is working." Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) wrote this weekend, "Extremist Shiite militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr is in hiding, his followers are not contesting American forces." Sadr's own words belie such a reading of his motivations. Describing the U.S. as the "archenemy," Sadr urged Iraq's army and police to remain independent of U.S. forces and to avoid being "drawn after the occupier, because he is your stark enemy." "Sadr's statement did not explicitly call for armed struggle against the Americans, but it still represented his most forceful condemnation of the American-led occupation since he went underground after the start of an intensified Baghdad security crackdown nearly two months ago."
In other news, NPR is reporting that in order to maintain troop levels, 12,000 National Guard troops are going to be redeployed to combat zones.
To all this, I say:
Click the box to find out how to participate.
Four years ago today, U.S.-led coalition forces marched into Baghdad and toppled the statue of Saddam Hussein, marking the "liberation" of Iraq. "Gone are the euphoric April 9 cheers of 'Good, Good, Bush' praising U.S. President George W. Bush for ousting the regime. Angry chants of 'Down with Bush' are a frequent background to brutal Shiite and Sunni sectarian strife." "The Americans call the 9th of April the liberation of Baghdad," said one man who identified himself as Alaa, "but it was just an invasion, and liberated the city from Saddam for them, not for us." "I really regret bringing down the statue," said Kadhim al-Jubouri, an Iraqi weightlifter who was enlisted to help symbolically bring down the statute in 2003. "The Americans are worse than the dictatorship. Every day is worse than the previous day." In a harsh condemnation of the U.S. mismanagement of Iraq, former Iraqi government minister Ali Allawi writes, "The corroded and corrupt state of Saddam was replaced by the corroded, inefficient, incompetent and corrupt state of the new order." Symbolic of the nation's current lack of security, the cities of Baghdad and Najaf have declared bans on vehicle traffic today, in an attempt to stave off any attacks on the anniversary. Tens of thousands of Iraqis draped themselves in Iraqi flags and marched through the streets of two Shiite holy cities Monday in a demonstration against the U.S. presence in Iraq. Salah al-Obaydi, an organizer of the protest, said, "We're hoping that by next year's anniversary, we will be an independent and liberated Iraq with full sovereignty." The Center for American Progress has a plan to accomplish that, and do so in a responsible way that serves the security interests of both the United States and the Iraqis.
SURGE SPREADS VIOLENCE: In the early stages of Bush's escalation strategy, "the daily bloodshed shows no let-up." Ten U.S. soldiers were killed this past weekend, along with at least 69 Iraqis. The escalation strategy, which officially began on Feb. 14 and sent 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq, has shown "little sign" of "accomplishing its main purpose: to create an island of stability in which Sunni Arabs, Shiite Arabs and Kurds can try to figure out how to run the country together. ... The rate of American deaths in [Baghdad] over the first seven weeks of the security plan has nearly doubled from the previous period, though it has stayed roughly the same over all, decreasing in other parts of the country as troops have focused on the capital." Because of the escalation, "death squad killings have been reduced in Baghdad, but car bombings in the city have continued and violence has surged in the regions just outside the capital." The American military acknowledges that much of the drop in the sectarian executions "has come because of decreased activity by Shiite militias and death squads, especially the powerful Mahdi Army militia that claims allegiance to the cleric Muqtada al-Sadr." Some of the Shiite militias appear to have "decided to refrain from carrying out revenge killings," allowing the U.S.-led coalition to carry out the fight against Sunni militants. "You have the enemy trying to show it is still strong and able to move and stir fear in the population," U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Christopher Garver said Sunday. "We anticipated a movement of enemy forces and violence to the north, south, east and west of Baghdad."
TERRORISTS ADOPT NEW TACTICS: In his Easter Sunday message, Pope Benedict XVI said, "Nothing positive comes from Iraq, torn apart by continual slaughter as the civil population flees." Terrorists in Iraq have adopted new tactics in response to the Bush administration's escalation. Last week, the U.S. military confirmed that an Army helicopter went down south of Baghdad, marking at least nine U.S. helicopters that have crashed or been brought down by hostile fire this year in Iraq. Also this weekend, "a suspected al-Qaida in Iraq suicide bomber smashed a truck loaded with TNT and toxic chlorine gas into a police checkpoint in Ramadi on Friday, killing at least 27 people -- the ninth such attack since the group's first known use of a chemical weapon in January." "January and February were particularly bad months for car bombing deaths; nearly 1,100 were killed in February alone. That number dropped to 783 in March, still high compared with months earlier in the war, according to an American military official. But the overall number of bombings actually increased: there were 108 car bombs that either detonated or were disarmed in March, a record for the war." "And in a new tactic, both Shiite and Sunni militants have been burning down homes and shops in the provinces in recent months." One American private described the fight this way: "The insurgents, they see what we're doing and we see what they're doing. Then we get ahead, then they figure out what we've done and they get ahead. It's like a game of cat and mouse. It's just a really, really smart mouse."
SADR'S RESISTANCE: Prominent Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr exhorted Iraqi security forces on Sunday to unite with his militiamen against the American military. Sadr, who has laid low during the troop surge, urged his militia members to "stop fighting and killing because that is what our enemy and your enemy and even God's enemy hope for." The head of his bloc in the Iraqi parliament, Nassar Rubaie, insisted that the movement was committed to nonviolent resistance. "We are now at the stage of political action," Rubaie said. "Peaceful means is the right way and has proved to be correct." Iraq war proponent Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) claimed that Sadr's statement proves the escalation is working. "He is not calling for a resurgence of sectarian conflict. He's striking a nationalist chord," Lieberman said. "He's acknowledging that the surge is working." Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) wrote this weekend, "Extremist Shiite militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr is in hiding, his followers are not contesting American forces." Sadr's own words belie such a reading of his motivations. Describing the U.S. as the "archenemy," Sadr urged Iraq's army and police to remain independent of U.S. forces and to avoid being "drawn after the occupier, because he is your stark enemy." "Sadr's statement did not explicitly call for armed struggle against the Americans, but it still represented his most forceful condemnation of the American-led occupation since he went underground after the start of an intensified Baghdad security crackdown nearly two months ago."
In other news, NPR is reporting that in order to maintain troop levels, 12,000 National Guard troops are going to be redeployed to combat zones.
To all this, I say:
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Truth
It is the working people
of this country
who pay
the price
of foreign wars -
in blood and in taxes.
of this country
who pay
the price
of foreign wars -
in blood and in taxes.
Friday, March 23, 2007
An Economic Primer
Myth # 1 (of 4)
It's election season, and immigration "reform" and raising the minimum wage are two topics that continue to grace the headlines. Likewise, the same, tired arguments are also circulating. Welfare, poverty, and the foreign-born all get rolled-up into some sort of Republican talking-point orgy. In fact, I have recently heard a great deal of discussion regarding the economic drain the undocumented immigrant population is to the US economy: those vile, dirty, law breakers who come to this country and apply for all sorts of government handouts they don't deserve. Why, the masses question, should our hard-earned tax dollars go to support those people? Welfare entitlements are, after all, perverse incentives to have more babies, leave stable unemployment, and remain single. While the most recent rhetoric implicates undocumented immigrants as those responsible for the growing welfare rolls, the larger questions surrounding government means-tested programs have been around since the the inception of said programs.
The attitudes that fuel public opinion about welfare are well-grounded in statistical information and amplified by personal observations and experiences. How many, for example, have stood behind a woman in a grocery store who purchases her necessities (potato chips, root beer, cheese) with food stamps? How many welfare moms appear to have never gone hungry? Isn't it that most of them are really lazy, and in the process of successfully bestowing their many children with this and other less-desirable character flaws? Those who seek to disband welfare programs believe not only that welfare is wasteful, but that it has unsuccessfully addressed poverty in the United States. It has become, they would argue, too large, too lavish, and too attractive.
Frankly, I am tired of this recurrent theme. To that end, I present:
The Myth of the Out of Control Welfare State
The picture of an overgrown welfare state is usually based on statistical information highlighting the amount of money the government spends annually on social welfare programs. What the government calls social welfare expenditures grew from $24 billion in 1950 to nearly $1 trillion in the beginning of the 1990's (US Census Bureau). This amount of money is considered by most to be an accurate measure of the numbers of people who "live off the system." The more the government spends on social welfare programs, the more people are being dragged into the welfare safety net, or so some reason. These numbers are also considered to be indicative of the failure of America's self-proclaimed "war on poverty." After all, if we are spending so much money on the poor, why has poverty remained such a persistent problem in this country?
The answer to this question lies, in part, in what is meant by social welfare expenditures. The term social welfare expenditures is a huge, encompassing umbrella under which exist several levels. One of these, called social insurance programs, includes such things as Social Security, unemployment insurance, retirement systems for public employees and railroad workers, and workers' compensation for people injured on the job. Government spending for schools also falls into the social welfare expenditures category. Combined with the social insurance programs, these two categories alone accounted for nearly 75 percent of all "welfare" spending in 1992.
How much of the $1 trillion is left for the poor then? According to the 1990 Congressional Budget Office's Special Analysis of the Budget, less than 10 percent of the annual welfare budget is earmarked for low-income persons. This is what the government calls "public aid" and includes, among others, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the food stamp and Medicaid programs, and the Supplemental Social Security Income (SSI) program for low-income people who are aged, disabled, or blind.
The question of why poverty persists despite apparently enormous welfare expenditures can be answered not only by understanding more clearly how much (or little) of welfare actually goes to the poor, but also by examining how poverty is defined. The government decides who is poor and who isn't based upon a 1950s US Department of Agriculture estimate of the costs of a minimally adequate food budget. The cost of this basic subsistence diet, a so-called thrifty food plan, was then multiplied by three, because surveys at the time indicated that the poor spent approximately one-third of their income on food. Later, the USDA "stressed that the cost of this plan is not a reasonable measure of basic money needs for a good diet." The plan also assumes that "families will bake bread daily and cook all their food from scratch, never buy fast food or eat out, use dried beans and no canned food, be experts in nutrition and have a working refrigerator, freezer, and stove, among other things." The poverty line was $3000 for a family of four in 1964. In 2005, a family of four is considered officially poor if their annual income is $19,874 or less. Anyone reading this knows that you can't raise a family on a gross income of $1650/month.
Since its establishment, the government has not adjusted the poverty level to reflect the changing dynamics of spending patterns. It simply takes the previous year's figure and adjusts for inflation. However, because of the rising costs of other necessities such as child care, transportation, and health care, it is unrealistic to assume that poor families still spend one-third of their budget on food. Several studies have shown that the official poverty level is less than two-thirds of what is necessary to buy those goods and services which the federal government defines as essential to the maintenance of adequate nutrition, housing, safety and health. The official poverty rate in 2004 was one in seven.
In essence, then, the amount of money that the United States government spends on entitlement programs is grossly over-estimated. In 1993, for example, AFDC spending consumed only 0.35 percent of the gross domestic product (Twentieth Century Fund, 1996). At the same time, the numbers of poor people in America are grossly under-estimated by the official standard. This said, it should be recognized that most poor people do not receive welfare. Only one-third of poor families receive public assistance payments and only about 40 percent receive any non -cash benefits such as food stamps, free or reduced school lunches, public housing or Medicaid. One-fourth of families that are poor by the official standard do not receive any public assistance of any kind, cash or non-cash.
It's election season, and immigration "reform" and raising the minimum wage are two topics that continue to grace the headlines. Likewise, the same, tired arguments are also circulating. Welfare, poverty, and the foreign-born all get rolled-up into some sort of Republican talking-point orgy. In fact, I have recently heard a great deal of discussion regarding the economic drain the undocumented immigrant population is to the US economy: those vile, dirty, law breakers who come to this country and apply for all sorts of government handouts they don't deserve. Why, the masses question, should our hard-earned tax dollars go to support those people? Welfare entitlements are, after all, perverse incentives to have more babies, leave stable unemployment, and remain single. While the most recent rhetoric implicates undocumented immigrants as those responsible for the growing welfare rolls, the larger questions surrounding government means-tested programs have been around since the the inception of said programs.
The attitudes that fuel public opinion about welfare are well-grounded in statistical information and amplified by personal observations and experiences. How many, for example, have stood behind a woman in a grocery store who purchases her necessities (potato chips, root beer, cheese) with food stamps? How many welfare moms appear to have never gone hungry? Isn't it that most of them are really lazy, and in the process of successfully bestowing their many children with this and other less-desirable character flaws? Those who seek to disband welfare programs believe not only that welfare is wasteful, but that it has unsuccessfully addressed poverty in the United States. It has become, they would argue, too large, too lavish, and too attractive.
Frankly, I am tired of this recurrent theme. To that end, I present:
The Myth of the Out of Control Welfare State
The picture of an overgrown welfare state is usually based on statistical information highlighting the amount of money the government spends annually on social welfare programs. What the government calls social welfare expenditures grew from $24 billion in 1950 to nearly $1 trillion in the beginning of the 1990's (US Census Bureau). This amount of money is considered by most to be an accurate measure of the numbers of people who "live off the system." The more the government spends on social welfare programs, the more people are being dragged into the welfare safety net, or so some reason. These numbers are also considered to be indicative of the failure of America's self-proclaimed "war on poverty." After all, if we are spending so much money on the poor, why has poverty remained such a persistent problem in this country?
The answer to this question lies, in part, in what is meant by social welfare expenditures. The term social welfare expenditures is a huge, encompassing umbrella under which exist several levels. One of these, called social insurance programs, includes such things as Social Security, unemployment insurance, retirement systems for public employees and railroad workers, and workers' compensation for people injured on the job. Government spending for schools also falls into the social welfare expenditures category. Combined with the social insurance programs, these two categories alone accounted for nearly 75 percent of all "welfare" spending in 1992.
How much of the $1 trillion is left for the poor then? According to the 1990 Congressional Budget Office's Special Analysis of the Budget, less than 10 percent of the annual welfare budget is earmarked for low-income persons. This is what the government calls "public aid" and includes, among others, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the food stamp and Medicaid programs, and the Supplemental Social Security Income (SSI) program for low-income people who are aged, disabled, or blind.
The question of why poverty persists despite apparently enormous welfare expenditures can be answered not only by understanding more clearly how much (or little) of welfare actually goes to the poor, but also by examining how poverty is defined. The government decides who is poor and who isn't based upon a 1950s US Department of Agriculture estimate of the costs of a minimally adequate food budget. The cost of this basic subsistence diet, a so-called thrifty food plan, was then multiplied by three, because surveys at the time indicated that the poor spent approximately one-third of their income on food. Later, the USDA "stressed that the cost of this plan is not a reasonable measure of basic money needs for a good diet." The plan also assumes that "families will bake bread daily and cook all their food from scratch, never buy fast food or eat out, use dried beans and no canned food, be experts in nutrition and have a working refrigerator, freezer, and stove, among other things." The poverty line was $3000 for a family of four in 1964. In 2005, a family of four is considered officially poor if their annual income is $19,874 or less. Anyone reading this knows that you can't raise a family on a gross income of $1650/month.
Since its establishment, the government has not adjusted the poverty level to reflect the changing dynamics of spending patterns. It simply takes the previous year's figure and adjusts for inflation. However, because of the rising costs of other necessities such as child care, transportation, and health care, it is unrealistic to assume that poor families still spend one-third of their budget on food. Several studies have shown that the official poverty level is less than two-thirds of what is necessary to buy those goods and services which the federal government defines as essential to the maintenance of adequate nutrition, housing, safety and health. The official poverty rate in 2004 was one in seven.
In essence, then, the amount of money that the United States government spends on entitlement programs is grossly over-estimated. In 1993, for example, AFDC spending consumed only 0.35 percent of the gross domestic product (Twentieth Century Fund, 1996). At the same time, the numbers of poor people in America are grossly under-estimated by the official standard. This said, it should be recognized that most poor people do not receive welfare. Only one-third of poor families receive public assistance payments and only about 40 percent receive any non -cash benefits such as food stamps, free or reduced school lunches, public housing or Medicaid. One-fourth of families that are poor by the official standard do not receive any public assistance of any kind, cash or non-cash.
To be continued.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
It is Sunday, After All
When The President Talks To God by Bright Eyes
When the president talks to God
Are the conversations brief or long
Does he ask to rape our women’s' rights
And send poor farm kids off to die?
Does God suggest an oil hike
When the president talks to God?
When the president talks to God
Are the consonants all hard or soft?
Is he resolute all down the line?
Is every issue black or white?
Does what God say ever change his mind
When the president talks to God?
When the president talks to God
Does he fake that drawl or merely nod?
Agree which convicts should be killed?
Where prisons should be built and filled?
Which voter fraud must be concealed
When the president talks to God?
When the president talks to God
I wonder which one plays the better cop
We should find some jobs. the ghetto's broke
No, they're lazy, George, I say we don't
Just give 'em more liquor stores and dirty coke
That's what God recommends
When the president talks to God
Do they drink near beer and go play golf
While they pick which countries to invade
Which Muslim souls still can be saved?
I guess god just calls a spade a spade
When the president talks to God
When the president talks to God
Does he ever think that maybe he's not?
That that voice is just inside his head
When he kneels next to the presidential bed
Does he ever smell his own bullshit
When the president talks to God?
I doubt it
I doubt it
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
