Iran, UK, and treatment of detainees

Over at The Guardian, Terry Jones makes good use of sarcasm to address an interesting point about Iran's treatment of the UK detainees.

It is also unacceptable that these British captives should be made to talk on television and say things that they may regret later. If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths, like we do to our captives, they wouldn't be able to talk at all. Of course they'd probably find it even harder to breathe - especially with a bag over their head - but at least they wouldn't be humiliated.

And what's all this about allowing the captives to write letters home saying they are all right? It's time the Iranians fell into line with the rest of the civilised world: they should allow their captives the privacy of solitary confinement. That's one of the many privileges the US grants to its captives in Guantánamo Bay.

[...]

What's more, it is clear that the Iranians are not giving their British prisoners any decent physical exercise. The US military make sure that their Iraqi captives enjoy PT. This takes the form of exciting "stress positions", which the captives are expected to hold for hours on end so as to improve their stomach and calf muscles. A common exercise is where they are made to stand on the balls of their feet and then squat so that their thighs are parallel to the ground. This creates intense pain and, finally, muscle failure. It's all good healthy fun and has the bonus that the captives will confess to anything to get out of it

I am not sure how this column will play out in the UK -- but can you even imagine the reaction from pundits here in the US, to someone objectively comparing our tactics to those of Iran? It is simply beyond the pale here in the US. Which is unfortunate, because the author here makes a serious point.

Hillary the Hawk (Part II)

More from TNR on Hillary Clinton's hawkish mind. This one comes from John B. Judis.

Michael Crowley has done a superb job explaining why Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war resolution in October 2002, but he didn't dwell at length on her current views about Iraq. These views, recently expressed in a New York Times interview, reveal an approach to Iraq that is entirely consistent with Crowley's analysis of her October 2002 vote. In spite of her support this month for a Senate resolution mandating withdrawal, Clinton is still a hawk on Iraq--and, in my opinion, is still flying blind

What Obama is really saying

Last week the Democratic candidiates convened in Las Vegas to discuss health care, and Mr. Hope himself, Barack Obama said the following:

Every four years somebody trots out a healthcare plan ... The question is: Do we have the political will and sense of urgency to actually get it done? I want to be held accountable to get it done.

Translation provided by The Soapbox:

I have no plan, and see no political benifit to having one, but I really want to be president.

This is simply pathetic.

The shift continues.

The Plank's Jonathan Cohn (easily TNR's most interesting contributer) has the latest on another free trader, who has seen the flaws in the doctrine of neoloberalism.

The piece he cites, from today's Financial Times, is especially timely given yesterday's article in The Wall Street Journal about Alan S. Binder.

From the FT piece:

Which is the greatest threat to globalisation: the protesters on the streets every time the International Monetary Fund or the World Trade Organisation meets, or globalisation's cheerleaders, who push for continued market opening while denying that the troubles surrounding globalisation are rooted in the policies they advocate? A good case can be made that the latter camp presents the greater menace. ...

Rational Manifesto

I have yet to express my extreme satisfaction in the creation of a fantastic new blog, Rational Manifesto.

While it is clear from our back-and-forth yesterday that we vehemently disagree on the merits of neoliberalism -- I am pretty sure Mr. Maher would claim that unfettered free trade is a cure for cancer -- his analysis of foreign policy issues is the product of unceasing research and a very keen eye on the ebb and flow of international relations. Do give him a read.

UPDATE: And please also check out Phil Primeau's latest project, the Emerson Conservative, which is a very nuanced and fearless journal of opinion from an Old Right perspective.

Rubinomics & The Democrats

Robert Kuttner in this month's American Prospect has a look into Robert Rubin's powerful influence over the Democratic Party, which still hold true today, in light of shifting attitudes on economics.

An interesting snippet:

And although he no longer raises large sums for political candidates himself, Rubin remains very close to others in the Wall Street Democratic money machine, and to its party conduits, particularly Senator Chuck Schumer, who heads the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, and Representative Rahm Emanuel, Schumer's House counterpart in the 2006 campaign.

When the Democrats took back the House in 2006, incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi advised the new Democratic caucus that its first two briefings would include one on defense, with three experts of differing views. On the economy, Robert Rubin would be appearing, solo.

It will be interesting to see how influential Rubin wil be on the Presidential candidates. To date Edwards's appears to be the only serious candidate who is advocating for an economic world view notably different from Rubin's. Clinton, unsurpisingly, is running the most conservative campaign on economic issues.

Rubin's position as the Democrats' economic seer is unfortunate in several related respects. First, the vision Rubin is selling offers nothing for an economically stressed electorate. His theory is that budget balance, free capital markets, and low interest rates are both necessary and mostly sufficient for broad prosperity. We might like new social spending, but alas, the fiscal imperatives tie our hands. Rubin was a big supporter of pay-as-you-go-budget rules, now adopted by the Democratic congressional majority. These rules limit further Republican tax cutting, but they also hobble Democrats' ability to spend more than token sums on new initiatives.

A 'Typical Anti-Neoliberal Tirade'

The increasingly Irrational Manifesto responds to my post about economic reforms in Iraq. He says in laughably overdramatic fashion that I have -- get this -- "launched into a typical anti-neoliberal tirade."

Tirade is quite the pejorative term. So much so that I used the word to describe the Marty Peretz response to George Soros just over a week ago. But I will simply ask one to to read my post, and then Steve's 1500 word response, and tell me which can be more accurately described as a "tirade."

I will respond in more detail to RM's post later this week, when time permits.

More on Democrats and Iraq

The debate over the Democrats approach to the war rages on amongst the left.

One hand you have William Greider, who in The Nation, hails the legislation as historic.

Take a deep breath. The nation has arrived at an extraordinary political moment. The Congress is about to instruct the President he should withdraw from the ongoing war. Yes, I know the fine print in the House and Senate versions has lots of wiggle room. But the congressional action is still breathtaking when you think about it, possibly without historic precedent.

I assumed it would take many months and numerous failed efforts for the new Democratic majority to reach this juncture. When House leaders kept softening their terms, I even thought it might be a good thing for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to lose the first time around. She would then be assailed by outraged Americans and get the message: stiffen up, this is not business as usual. I was mistaken. Many of the final details are disappointing, but the message has been delivered and received--get out of Iraq. It will rule politics until the American exit actually occurs.

But what Greider calls "wiggle room" others call outright capitulation -- "a complete farce."

From Joshua Frank's latest essay:

Having been one of the unfortunate geeks who actually read the bill, I can tell you only one thing -- it’s a complete farce.

In order for troops to come home the Bushies would have to confirm whether or not “progress” had been made in Iraq, not Congress. So with more money in hand and sole authority on deciding whether or not the war in going as planned, the White House, even if Bush signed the bill, would never have to end the thing. The proposal wasn’t a compromise as many have claimed, but a dagger in the heart of all those of us who want to bring this war to a screeching halt.

As I noted several days ago, reasonable people can be conflicted on how to approach the legislative end of this issue. But it is quite clear that the Iraq supplemental bill, even if it were to survive as it stands, does not and will not serve to end the war. Knowing this, those of us who oppose the continuation of this criminally misguided occupation would be wise to continue to pressure our representatives.

PBS Frontline: on the Media

Last night PBS Frontline aired its fourth and final installement of "News War" which has been a facinatating and in-depth look into the news media of today.

This program touched on so many issues facing media today, that it would be impossible to give an adequate summary right now, but I do have a couple of quick thoughts reacting to last night's broadcast.

1.) How absurd is it that the United States big media companies will not air Al Jazeera English, and give Americans a glimpse of another viewpoint and another culture? Ignorance is far more sinister when it is self-imposed.

2.) While newspapers and magazines continue to face cuts, PBS has again showed us why public broadcasting is so important, and why we ought to provide more funding to it. From a piece I wrote at The Globe.

In the United States about $1.70 of the average person's annual taxes goes towards public broadcasting. To put this into perspective, the average American spends $33 of thier taxes on pork barrel spending.

If we hope get information ... we ought to consider putting more money into public broadcasting.

And the public agrees.

Economist has second thoughts on free trade

While the Washington Consensus on economic matters was once largely viewed as the premise from which to start a debate on trade, (for more on this see David Brooks on " The Death of Neoliberalism," and the facinating array or responses from liberal bloggers), more and more our starting to notice the downsides of the policies.

In today's Wall Street Journal, there is a report of Princeton Economist, Alan S. Binder -- once a staunch supporter of neoliberalism -- now singing a different tune.

For decades, Alan S. Blinder -- Princeton University economist, former Federal Reserve Board vice chairman and perennial adviser to Democratic presidential candidates -- argued, along with most economists, that free trade enriches the U.S. and its trading partners, despite the harm it does to some workers. "Like 99% of economists since the days of Adam Smith, I am a free trader down to my toes," he wrote back in 2001.

Politicians heeded this advice and, with occasional dissents, steadily dismantled barriers to trade. Yet today Mr. Blinder has changed his message -- helping lead a growing band of economists and policy makers who say the downsides of trade in today's economy are deeper than they once realized.

Mr. Blinder, whose trenchant writing style and phrase-making add to his influence, remains an implacable opponent of tariffs and trade barriers. But now he is saying loudly that a new industrial revolution -- communication technology that allows services to be delivered electronically from afar -- will put as many as 40 million American jobs at risk of being shipped out of the country in the next decade or two. That's more than double the total of workers employed in manufacturing today. The job insecurity those workers face today is "only the tip of a very big iceberg," Mr. Blinder says.

Of course, Prof. Binder as not flipped over to the side of Sherrod Brown or Lou Dobbs -- not even close. But he is saying what the archneoliberals so often refuse to aknowledge: that the free trade doctrine they prescribe to has massive consequences to working people.

Mr. Blinder's answer is not protectionism, a word he utters with the contempt that Cold Warriors reserved for communism. Rather, Mr. Blinder still believes the principle British economist David Ricardo introduced 200 years ago: Nations prosper by focusing on things they do best -- their "comparative advantage" -- and trading with other nations with different strengths ...

But he says the harm done when some lose jobs and others get them will be far more painful and disruptive than trade advocates acknowledge. He wants government to do far more for displaced workers than the few months of retraining it offers today. He thinks the U.S. education system must be revamped so it prepares workers for jobs that can't easily go overseas, and is contemplating changes to the tax code that would reward companies that produce jobs that stay in the U.S.

UPDATE: William Greider puts in his $.02 at The Nation.

This just in from today's Wall Street Journal: "Pain From Free Trade Spurs Second Thoughts." Can you believe it? A "downer" story on globalization from the mother church of free-market capitalism. Who knew it was so bad? Actually, many millions of working Americans knew and have known for many years. They were regarded as mindless "protectionists." WSJ gave them the back of its hand.

Think of today's lengthy, revelatory story as a massive "correction." It led the newspaper's front page and recounted the heavy doubts accumulating among establishment free-traders about what they have wrought. The actual destruction from globalization is worse than anything they had imagined and it's going to get far worse.

The Journal is playing catch-up, to put it kindly. This is the bad news that newspaper was never willing to face frankly and publish. Now that it has, however, the impact will be truly significant--mainly by opening the way for other newspapers (think New York Times and Washington Post) whose editors and reporters have been similarly afraid to tell the whole truth about free-trade dogma's destructive impact on American prosperity. I look forward to many more confessional "corrections" from our leading media

Open markets & Iraq

Over at Rational Mainifesto, Steve makes the following case for neoliberalism in Iraq.

The institutions and ideals that the market espouses and requires are in dire need in Iraq, such as protections of individual rights and freedoms, a functioning legal system, a monetary system, and much more. Only economic growth and the spread of business, brought about by investment, could hope to create jobs for the roughly 40% of Iraqis who are currently unemployed in that country.

It is still true, however, that the investment climate is less than ideal at the moment, and Iraq may not find many investors in the non-resource sectors. Once the security situation is better, we should all hope that the missteps of the United States in that country do not foster a fear of all things Western, including investment capital.

Steve fails to address an important element of the invasion of Iraq, and that is, as Naomi Klein illustrates here, the fact that one of the major "reforms" to Iraqi society imposed by the US, was indeed to "shock" them into open markets, will of the people be damned. This tactic only added to anti-Western sentiments in Iraq, and makes Steve's hope that Iraq does not succumb to a "fear of all things Western, including investment capital" pretty much dead on arrival.

That, in essence, was the working thesis in Iraq, and in keeping with the belief that private companies are more suited than governments for virtually every task, the White House decided to privatize the task of privatizing Iraq's state-dominated economy. Two months before the war began, USAID began drafting a work order, to be handed out to a private company, to oversee Iraq's “transition to a sustainable market-driven economic system.” The document states that the winning company (which turned out to be the KPMG offshoot Bearing Point) will take “appropriate advantage of the unique opportunity for rapid progress in this area presented by the current configuration of political circumstances.” Which is precisely what happened.

After an exhausting set of examples of Bremer's economic reforms she adds:

If these policies sound familiar, it's because they are the same ones multinationals around the world lobby for from national governments and in international trade agreements. But while these reforms are only ever enacted in part, or in fits and starts, Bremer delivered them all, all at once. Overnight, Iraq went from being the most isolated country in the world to being, on paper, its widest-open market.

Steve does rightly point out how the mess the US has caused in Iraq, has ironically shattered their visions of Iraq as an investors paradise. From Klein's piece:

If there ever was a moment when Iraqis were too disoriented to resist shock therapy, that moment has definitely passed. Labor relations, like everything else in Iraq, has become a blood sport. The violence on the streets howls at the gates of the factories, threatening to engulf them. Workers fear job loss as a death sentence, and managers, in turn, fear their workers, a fact that makes privatization distinctly more complicated than the neocons foresaw

Hillary the Hawk

Michael Crowley on Hillary Clinton's hawkish record.

Clinton and Accountability

Matt Stoller notes that while Hillary Clinton has kept command of the race, there seems to be too much quiet out in the wilderness.

Hillary Clinton, while no George Bush, cannot by any measure be considered an anti-war candidate. So I'm wondering, and this is the big danger to our party, why there isn't more of a profound concern about how dangerous she really is. Why aren't there PACs lined up against her stance on the war? Why are donors rushing in to support her? Why are her supporters going along with the fiction that opposition to her candidacy comes from some blind hatred of Clinton instead of a real disagreement with her policy choices and her judgment, both of which are demonstrably bad for America and the Democratic Party? Why aren't local bloggers demanding she answer questions at events? Why does Vilsack get off scot-free for endorsing her?

We're having a big fight over a supplemental bill, which we all know can only bring the date of the war's end closer but cannot end the war before Bush leaves office. And the fight is among a group of progressives who all agree on the ends but disagree on tactics. The amount of heat generated is high relative to concern about what happens in Iraq after 2009. That does seem to be where we actually have leverage. Whatever you think about the supplemental fight, our party's standard-bearer at this moment does not represent the party or the country.

What is going on with us Democrats? Are we really that stupid?

A fair question. Democrats elect a new Congress because they are fed up with income ineqaulity and the War in Iraq, and yet, they seem poised to choose the candidate who is the most friendly to big-business and the most hawkish on the War on Terror. It boggles the mind.

What Democrats conceded with the Iraq Bill

If one is deciding whether or not to celebrate or bemoan the latest budget for Iraq, passed narrowly in the House, consider the following from Kucinich (Emphasis is mine):

$120 billion for an escalation of the war, the privatization of Iraqi oil assets and a possible extension of the war into Iran. And the President said he will veto this because it's not enough. By showing such a weak position against the Administration and the war, the Democrats have thoroughly undermined whatever bargaining position they could have had.

A valid point, even pragmatically speaking. Knowing that the bill serves zero chance of passing the Bush veto, and will presumably be drastically weakened from the sausage making fest that is the lawmaking process in the US Senate, it is troubling to know what the Democrats have already conceded

1.) The Iran language which wold have forced Bush to go to Congress in he wanted to use force against Iran, was stripped from the bill -- no small matter. To Pelosi's credit she insured progressive congresspeople who were upset about this that she would force a vote on the issue. Still, it is an unfortunate sign that the Blue Dogs are successfully playing this card.

2.) Allowing Bush to use word acrobatics, or outright dishonesty to avoid the benchmark provisions. Pelosi has even said that for this to work it requires the President to be honest about the progress, which is a scary proposition indeed.

3.) $120 billion in funds, enough for Bush to continue this deadly occupation for the duration of his term. Just think about that: we are starting the effort to end the war, by giving a boatload of cash buy the weapons that will inevitably maim thousands of civilians and serves to fuel radicalism and attacks against the US.

4.) Not a word about private contractors, which, as Jeremy Scahill (and Garrett Ordower) note in Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army , make up nearly half of our forces in Iraq. Without accounting for them, we are starting by allowing nearly 100,000 mercenaries to remain there indefinitely, and without any accountability. This can hardly be called an end of the war knowing this.

Now, I should note that I don't think supporters of this legislation, be they David Sirota, or progressive members of the Congress, or the bloggers over at MyDD, are sellouts or wish to continue the war. Most of these supporters, I think, have the right intentions, and indeed we do need to work together on this issue: we are on the same team in a sense. They understand the political obstacles in the way, most notably from the Blue Dogs in Congress. Lord knows Nancy Pelosi has an incredibly difficult job. I just wish more of the leaders of the progressive movement who are not politicians, but bloggers, writers, activists etc ... would keep staunch pressure on the Democrats to do more. We know that we will not get everything we ask for -- but let us ask for it nonetheless. As Howard Zinn noted the other day, as citizens it is not our job to endorse the ends of what is legislatively possible, but to support what is right, and what is just.

If Congress thinks it must compromise, let it. But we should not encourage that. We should speak our minds fully, boldly and say what is right, whatever they decide to do..

And frankly $120 billion for this criminally stupid war, is none of those things. That progressive citizens feel compelled to look at ending this war through the cold lens of political calculation that members of Congress do, is rather disappointing.

So I do think some are overstating (also here) the new power that the progressive caucus has in light of this great "victory." It seems the Blue Dogs were successful in thwarting the will of the American people, who want to end this war. I don't mean to sound too cynical. This was and is a painful process, but at least wheels are in motion, however slowly. Congress is light years ahead of where it was in 2004, for example, and there are signs of progress. But we are not close to ending this war, not with proposals like this, and we ought to understand this as we move forward. .

But move forward we must. So lets get to work.

Howard Zinn responds to Moveon

Howard Zinn responds.

"I'm disappointed in MoveOn. We are not politicians, we are citizens. Let the politicians advocate half-way measures if they choose, but only after they have felt the full force of citizens who speak for what is right, not what is winnable in a shameful timorous Congress. Timetables for withdrawal are not only morally reprehensible in the case of a brutal occupation (would you give a thug who invaded your house, smashed things up, and terrorized your children a timetable for withdrawal?) but logically nonsensical. If our troops are preventing civil war, helping people, controlling violence, then why withdraw at all? If they are in fact doing the opposite -- provoking civil war, hurting people, perpetuating violence -- they should withdraw as quickly as ships and planes can carry them home. If Congress thinks it must compromise, let it. But we should not encourage that. We should speak our minds fully, boldly and say what is right, whatever they decide to do..

"I would add this: To me it is tantamount to the abolitionists accepting a two-year timeline for ending slavery, while giving more money to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.

Sirota's Statement

I tend to agree with David Sirota on most things, but his latest letter to the Congressional Progressive Caucus is not only unconvincing, but especially so coming from him. This is not to say Sirota is not a credible progressive voice, or solidly anti-war -- he is both things, but the tone leaves a bad aftertaste, and his underlying reasons conflict, unambiguously, with his own ideals.

He leads by quoting Saul Alinsky, and writes:

“As an organizer I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be."

This serves as the general basis for his plea: in the name of pragmatism, progressive members of Congress, must vote yes on the most recent Iraq bill. But, Sirota's new found passion for compromise seems odd, given his utter refusal to do just that on other issues.

This is not to say he was wrong then, or even wrong now -- only to say that he is not the ideal voice to wag his finger at progressives for not wanting to compromise on a bill that will help to fund George Bush's war.

Moreover, Sirota admits to working for Rep. Obey -- otherwise known as the guy who called anti-war protesters "idiot liberals" for opposing legislation that fails to end the war. And Sirota, was very quick to not only defend him, but to suggest that some progressive leaders really are 'idiot liberals.' Again, this does make Sirota wrong, per se; but it is not irrelevant by any means.

Lastly, Sirota's absurd reference to the "Professional Protest Industry" sounded like it could have come out of the mouth of (INSERT YOUR FAVORITE MCARTHYITE'S NAME HERE).

He writes (emphasis is mine):

Congressional progressives now face the same pangs that come with evolving into a movement with majority power, rather than serving merely as contrairian voices in the minority. They are undoubtedly being pressured by a small but very vocal group of organizations that make up what’s known as the Professional Protest Industry – organizations that exist solely to see the world as they want it, not as it is (a note: not everyone working to kill the supplemental is part of the Professional Protest Industry - many folks just legitimately believe stopping the supplemental is the best way to go, and I absolutely respect that even though I think it is the wrong strategy - however, there is no denying that there is a loud, vocal Professional Protest Industry - check out International ANSWER or the LaRouchies for a few examples).

This LaRouche comment is simply the last straw. To attempt to link opposition to this legislation to LaRouche -- a man who has about the same level of credibility as the Flat Earth Society -- is not only grossly unfair, but utterly surreal. I would wager that LaRouche minions represent about .000000001 percent of the anti-war opposition, and have zero influence on this, or any other matter of national significance.

I hope, and genuinely expect, that Sirota will return to producing the high quality work that he is known for. This latest effort, however, is one I find to be terribly unconvincing.

Pete Stark's 'Secular Confession'

From Campus Progress

Secular Confession

A congressman comes clean about his non-belief in God.

By Michael Corcoran
Wednesday March 21, 2007

Representative Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA) has come out of the closet: he is the first U.S. Congressman in history to admit to being a non-theist (any person, atheist, agnostic or otherwise who does not believe in a deity), acknowledging that he doesn’t “believe in a supreme being.” He made the admission to the Secular Coalition for America on March 12 and it was reported in the Los Angeles Times.

“This is very exciting for us,” said Ron Millar of the Secular Coalition in an interview with Campus Progress. “Hopefully this will enable others to feel comfortable in coming forward.”

But the fact that only one member of Congress openly represents the nation’s humanists, agnostics, and atheists, is a sad reminder of America’s prejudice towards non-believers.

According to a national survey done last year by researchers in the University of Minnesota’s department of sociology, atheists are the least trusted minority group in America. They are also the group that parents would least like their children to marry. “Atheists,” said Penny Edgell, the lead researcher in the study, “offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years.”

Moreover, only 45 percent of Americans said they would vote for an atheist in a presidential election if their party nominated a well-qualified candidate, according to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll. Atheists ranked below every other group listed: African Americans (95 percent), women (88 percent), Hispanics (87 percent), people who have been married three times (67 percent), people over age 72 (57 percent), and gays (55 percent).

These polls may explain why non-theists are woefully underrepresented in government. Even with Stark’s announcement, no out-of-the-closet atheist has ever won a federal election. “If the number of non-theists in Congress reflected the percentage of non-theists in the population,” said Lori Lipman Brown, director of the Secular Coalition, based on their estimate that 10 percent of the American public is non-theist, “there would be 53-54 non-theistic Congress members instead of one.”

Of course, it is statistically improbable that only one of the 535 members of Congress do not believe in a higher being. But there would clearly be genuine political consequences for a religious skeptic to speak out openly about the issue. Which may explain why, on top of Stark, only three other public officials—all from local governments—have identified themselves as non-theists, according to the Secular Coalition.

And therein lies the problem. “We are so closeted,” said David Silverman, spokesman for American Atheists. “The stereotypes propagated by religious groups stick. They are not challenged—but they should be.”

Indeed, leaders of the religious right, who represent about a quarter of the electorate, often smear atheists as amoral cretins. So it was no surprise that the religious right moved quickly to condemn Stark’s announcement. The Christian Seniors Association called Stark’s revelation a “sad benchmark for America” that could “be the moment which defines the decline of our country.”

Of course, what they call “sad,” many call progress. And the youth of our nation seem well-positioned to make progress on the issue. Polls show that America’s young people are more tolerant than older people on a wide range of contentious social issues. According to a Pew Research Center poll, people born between 1981 and 1988 are the most accepting of gay rights, interracial marriage, and immigrants. Moreover, they are more skeptical of creationist dogma than any other age group.

About 20 percent of that demographic, what Pew refers to as “Generation Next,” identify themselves as either atheist, agnostic, or having no religion—up from 10 percent a generation ago, and about twice the national average.

Silverman notes that new technology and the rise of the Internet has created a “smaller world” and enabled young people to “seek viewpoints from other parts of the world that are quite tolerant of secularism.”

So there is every reason to be optimistic that the next generation of leaders will not need to rely on the actions of one congressman, who has unfortunately made intolerant statements of his own—he once called another congressman “a little fruitcake” during a hearing —and instead foster a real sea change in the way the country views the non-religious.

Religion has no monopoly on morality. And the non-believers among us are our friends, coworkers, and our family; they fight our wars, teach our kids, and care for our sick.

They also help to rebuild our cities. In 2006, the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association was almost excluded from an “ecumenical prayer service” about Hurricane Katrina sponsored by the city, despite the fact that humanist organizations raised thousands of dollars to help rebuild New Orleans. After a long struggle to be included, Harry Greenberger, a board member of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association, was able to speak at the event.

“For us secular non-religious people, our strength and dedication to Katrina recovery comes from the acceptance that we live in a natural, not supernatural, world and that the quality of our lives and surroundings depends entirely on what we ourselves do, and our cooperation with other humans,” said Greenberger. “We are equally important in the rebirth and rebuilding of our city. Our losses are as great as all others in the area; our grief is as deep; our empathy for others is as sincere; and our recovery is as deserved.”

Until our country realizes that non-theists can be good, caring people, we will never shake the ugliness of hate and prejudice that pollutes our society. Though he may not be the ideal spokesperson for them, Rep. Stark has taken a bold, courageous step. Let the next generation lead the way from here.

Alito defends the "Bong Hits for Jesus" kids?

My friend Pat notes a curious quote from Justice Alito, via the AP.

Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote several opinions in favor of student speech rights while a federal appeals court judge, seemed more concerned by the administration's broad argument in favor of schools than did his fellow conservatives.

''I find that a very, a very disturbing argument,'' Alito told Justice Department lawyer Edwin Kneedler, ''because schools have ... defined their educational mission so broadly that they can suppress all sorts of political speech and speech expressing fundamental values of the students, under the banner of getting rid of speech that's inconsistent with educational missions.''

I wonder if Alito has prayer in school on his mind, given that conservatives often view that as a free speech issue?

The American Conservative Lives

There had been whispers that the paleonconservative publication, The American Conservative, would cease publication due to funding. But the latest news about a new publisher should end such speculation.

I have noted the value of The American Conservative on the blog before (here, and here). And given the changes facing print media, that an opinion journal that represents an underrepresented ideological view is here to stay, can only be good for democracy and discourse.

Also worth watching is the status of The New Republic, which was recently sold by Peretz to the huge Canadien conglomerate, CanWest. That Peretz's iron grip on the magazine is loosened is one reason to be optimistic, but CanWest brings some of its own baggage.

Soros, Peretz and AIPAC

George Soros writes a piece in The New York Review of Books that will surely anger the likes of Marty Peretz, who has already responded with a predictable tirade.

Hitchens: Was I Wrong about Iraq?

Christopher Hitchen's latest reminds the world that not only has Hitchens lost much of his credibility as an intellectual, but also as a writer. There is nothing even remotely redeeming about this piece. It fails to bend the mind, or make a strong argument. It is utterly useless.

Opposing the War on Terror

Katrina vanden Heuvel writes an important piece about the need to end not just The War in Iraq, but also the War on Terror.

We would do better --both in addressing the danger of a wider sectarian war with failing regimes in the Middle East, and in combating terrorism-- to reduce the heavy US military and geopolitical footprint in the region. That means withdrawing US forces from Iraq and organizing regional diplomacy, including with Iran and Syria, to contain the civil war from spreading to other countries in the region. It would mean addressing the legitimate grievances that arouse the passions of many in the Islamic world, especially Israel's occupation of the West Bank. And it would mean changing the conversation with the people of the Arab and Islamic worlds from the danger of extremism to the promise of more economic opportunity.

I am in total lockstep with her on this one, and in fact, last fall I wrote a piece called In Opposition to the War on Terror, which essentially argued the exact same thing.

But the war on terror as a concept is largely safe from critical dialogue from American’s politicians on both parties. In fact, Democrats who challenge the legitimacy or effectiveness of the Iraq War, argue that it is merely a “distraction” from the war on terror and will limit our options to invade other countries, such as Iran. In other words, pre-emptive wars of aggression are fine, a constant state of warfare is fine, but Iraq was executed ineptly.

[...]

This debate ought to be expanded past Iraq, and discussed more broadly. The reason for this is simple: It is President Bush’s global war on terror, not Iraq, which has been used to justify all the administration’s war policies, including the invasion of Iraq.

[...]

Such ambiguities enable the US government to simply decide what terrorism is on a case-by-case basis. The mere existence of the war on terror already serves as a justification for future wars, further torture and more assaults on our privacy and personal liberties.

[...]

Accordingly, we should oppose all continuous wars, including Bush’s war on terror. If we fail to do this, we will settle for the only alternative: a state of perpetual warfare.

John Kerry and FOIA

This effort by Kerry to make it easier for journalists -- even those, such as bloggers, that are unaffiliated with a major news organization -- to get access to government documents is a great move by the Senator. From the Kerry for Senate blog:

Senator John Kerry today announced his support for a legislative initiative designed to assist the freedom of the press. The bill would make the federal Freedom of Information Act more powerful, primarily by making it harder for the Administration to deny or delay the release of information. It does that by requiring that an agency respond to FOIA requests within 20 business days and establishes a publicly available tracking system for requests.

In addition, the legislation would help bloggers, because it would prevent agencies from denying them a waiver on fees just because they are independent or not affiliated with any institutional news organization. In the past, the need to pay fees for FOIA requests discouraged many bloggers or independent journalists from pursuing FOIA requests.

“There is no greater or more important watchdog today than our free press and we should all do everything we can to strengthen the ability of dedicated reporters to do their job,” Kerry said today. “Recent news reports on Walter Reed, the Big Dig, or even the US Attorney firings have reminded us just how important the press’s oversight is to our system of governance. In cases like those, exposure meant the difference between life and death. I am proud to sponsor this bill and look forward to voting on it when it comes before the full Senate.”

Paleocons & the Left: Strange Bedfellows (Part II)

Ezra Klein and other liberal bloggers were applauded in a really good article in The American Conservative. Now, this is the second time in a couple of weeks I have pointed out how edifying a read The American Conservative can be, and in reading back issues, this is not a new phenomenon.

In 2004, rather than endorsing one candidate, they ran six editorials with a different writer making a different endorsement: for Bush, Nader, Kerry, the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party and -- get this -- not voting. Here, one can also read an interview between Nader and Pat Buchanan.

Say what you will about the more repugnant views of many Paleocons, but I think they understand why opinion journalism is important in expanding debate.

Democrats & the War

For a pretty solid analysis of the fine line Democrats are walking between finding a bill that will garner support, as opposed to one that will actually end the war, read John Nichol's latest post at The Online Beat. (A blog at The Nation)

So, in hopes of initially uniting Democrats and then creating a new center of gravity in the House that might see a significant number of Republicans sign on to a "troops home" measure, Pelosi and two of her closest allies, Appropriations Committee chair David Obey, D-Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha, who chairs the Appropriations subcommittee charges with oversight of military spending, have set out to use the spending bill as a tool to reframe the debate about the war.

It is the sort of serious legislative move that gets points from government teachers but that leaves activists cold. And Pelosi has struggled to keep her balance in the face of fierce attacks from the White House and the Republican National Committee for trying to "micromanage" the war – GOP press releases refer to her deridingly as "General Pelosi" – and from progressives who say she is not doing enough to bring the troops home.

The essential objection to the legislation Pelosi, Obey and Murtha are pushing so aggressively is that it does not end the war. In fact, it funds the war for a year or more – perhaps even providing sufficient resources for the president to pursue his objectives until the end of his tenure in 2009.

Pelosi and her allies speak of establishing benchmarks and timelines designed to force the president's hand; "We are trying to end the authorization of the war if the Iraqis and the administration don't perform," says Obey, who got in trouble last week for referring to critics of the plan's caution as "idiot liberals."

Unfortunately for Obey and Pelosi, the "idiot liberals" have a point when they say that the Democratic leadership plan offers no assurance that U.S. troops will be extracted from Iraq in 2008.

Medicare for All

Richardson steps up on Medical Marijuana

Presidential Candidate, and Gov. of New Mexico, Bill Richardson signed a bill legalizing medical marijuana. From the report (emphasis is mine):

Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson, poised to sign a bill making New Mexico the 12th state to legalize medical marijuana, said Thursday he realizes his action could become an issue in the presidential race.

"So what if it's risky? It's the right thing to do," said Richardson, one of the candidates in the crowded 2008 field. "What we're talking about is 160 people in deep pain. It only affects them."

Helen Thomas Keeps Her Seat

Drudge is reporting that Helen Thomas will keep her seat in the front row of the White House Press Room, contrary to previous reports.

Fox News will remain in the second row.

The Politics of Impeachment

Originally published at Oped News

Michael Corcoran

It has become painfully clear to anyone that follows Beltway politics, that principle almost never rules the day. With a few notable exceptions -- such as Russ Feingold’s brave opposition to the Patriot Act, or his motion to censure the President -- today’s politicians won’t so much as sneeze without checking with their advisors to see what the political consequences may be.

It is this tendency, at least in part, that prompted many Democrats to cave on crucial issues: such as voting to give Bush authority to invade Iraq in 2002, or to vote for the Military Commissions Act (I’m looking at you Sherrod Brown). This cautious and weak behavior was on display last week when both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton needed a full day to decide if they could say homosexuality is not immoral.

This approach no doubt has been behind the Democrats inability to seriously approach the issue of impeachment. For most on the left it seems like a no brainier. Bush, and members of his administration, have unambiguously committed several impeachable offenses: manipulating intelligence to go to war, abuse of power with the excessive use signing statements, institutionalizing torture, spying on Americans, outing a CIA agent and firing federal prosecutors for political gain.

The simple role of Congress in providing a check on executive power should be enough, but the Democrats have shown time and time again that are less concerned with protecting the Constitution than they are with winning elections. So it is this spirit that I make the case for impeachment through the lens of cold political calculation.

Impeachment is not merely your Constitutional duty, but also a tactically wise political move. There is far more to gain by trying, even if it ends in failure, then by “running out the clock” and waiting for the nightmare to come to a painful conclusion. Impeachment will strengthen the party and its prospects for the future, rather than diminish it.

Polls, though few in number, show that a good portion of the country is open to impeachment. 42 percent of Americans said they would support impeaching the president “if it were proved that he had misled the nation about his reasons for going to War in Iraq,” according to a Zogby poll done in June. This is substantially higher than public support for the Clinton impeachment.

According to an LA Times/Bloomberg poll from early last year, 39 percent of the country would consider it an impeachable offense "[i]f a congressional investigation finds that George W. Bush broke the law when he authorized government agencies to use electronic surveillance to monitor American citizens without a court warrant." The poll also concluded that 57 percent of Americans wants Congress to "hold hearings to investigate the legality” of the NSA program.

To go further back, we learn that in late 2005 50 percent of those polled by IPSOS, agreed with the following statement: "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."

And since these polls were done trust in President Bush has dwindled dramatically. His approval ratings have plummeted, support for the war has evaporated, and further scandals (including one resulting in conviction ) have filled the news hole. The public is angry; there is every reason to believe that support for impeachment has only risen along with this anger.

Moreover, those who are opposed or unsure about impeachment, may well be convinced if the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush Administration are laid out to the public everyday.

Sure the Republicans may fend off the attack President Bush may well remain in office until Jan. 2009 anyway. But the endeavor would still be a huge success: it would enlighten the American people, and permanently put the horrible misdeeds of the President and his cohorts into the congressional record. And it goes without saying that the grassroots base of the party would be energized by the process.

Can you even envision a scenario in which an on-the-fence voter would feel more compelled to vote Republican in 2008 out of anger at the Democrats for using this maneuver? History certainly would not add credence to that theory. In the case of Clinton, the Republicans did quite swimmingly in the following elections, earning a monolithic voice in government after repeated successes in 2000, 2002 and 2004. The first presidential election after the Nixon resignation was a victory by Jimmy Carter. And even going back to the 19th century, it was again the opposition party that won the presidency following the Andrew Johnson impeachment proceedings.

Some argue that this would serve as a “distraction” and prevent Democrats from pursuing other goals. However, between Bush’s veto power, and a closely divided senate, bold legislation is doomed to fail anyway -- especially given Joe Lieberman’s love affair with the GOP.

The case for impeachment is sound, and the path is clear. Not only is impeachment the moral responsibility of the Congress -- but it is also a pragmatic political maneuver. The Democrats in Congress have a chance to strengthen the party and the country.

Will they take advantage of the opportunity?

More Nonsense from the 9-11 Truthers

That's it. I can no longer take it. I would rather confer with Lyndon LaRouche at a meeting for the Flat Earth Society, than have to read one more fucking word about 9-11 Truthers.

As Matt Taibbi once wrote:

I have no doubt that every time one of those Loose Change dickwads opens his mouth, a Republican somewhere picks up five votes.

Around the Web: Kucinich, Impeachment and Other Musings

*Dennis Kucinich is sending a message about impeachment. Even some comments on DailyKos, a place not very friendly to the Kuc, are rather positive. Now, I have no delusions about Kucinich's chances to win -- or even compete -- for the nomination. But, if he takes an aggressive approach on this issue, it will expand the debate, and give him more exposure. It may also give him a one or two points bump in the polls, for whatever that is worth.

Seems like a good deal for everyone concerned, other than the White House. It about time more attention is paid to the “I Word.”


* Sam Harris has something new in the LA Times.

There is no question that many people do good things in the name of their faith — but there are better reasons to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak than the belief that an Imaginary Friend wants you to do it. Compassion is deeper than religion. As is ecstasy. It is time that we acknowledge that human beings can be profoundly ethical — and even spiritual — without pretending to know things they do not know.

*What the hell has happened to Deval Patrick?

Hillary Clinton: The Occupation will Continue

Hillary Clinton will keep troops in Iraq if elected president.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

[...]

She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

Matt Stoller over at MyDD gives sage advice, upon learning the news.

This stance deserves deep consideration by Democratic primary voters. It's a genuinely and deeply conservative foreign policy strategy, involving indefinitely keeping US troops in Iraq for unspecified national security interests while calling the war over.

Hillary Clinton's promise to continue the Iraqi occupation will become the Democratic Party platform if she is the nominee. This is a very dangerous roadmap for the Democrats.

The Weekly Standard's Weakest Link

I have long thought that Fred Barnes is the weakest writer at the The Weekly Standard, which, despite my utter contempt for their ideology, most notably their foreign policy views, does have some sharp writers.

This latest article -- Cheerleader in Chief -- proves that Barnes doesn't even want to be taken seriously. Recall this is from the guy who wrote a book calling George Bush the "Rebel in Chief."

That's right, a guy from Yale who just happens to be the son of the President of the United States is a rebel.

Obama on Homosexuality

Like Hillary, he avoids saying. homosexuality is not immoral.

Hillary on Homosexuality

Kos rightly attacks Hillary Clinton for refusing to "say, unambiguously, that she agrees with 80-year-old Republican Senator John Warner that no, [gays] are not "'immoral.'"

I don't really understand her political motive for taking this approach. Is she genuinely conflicted on the issue? Or is she banking on getting some of that coveted "anti-gay" vote? Neither answer is very flattering for Clinton, that's for sure.

More pressure on Gonzales

The first Republican Congressman has broken the seal. The question is: who among his peers will join the fray?

Gonzales must feel like he his about 30 percent of the way through his own version of The Final Days.

Report on Israeli Settlements

Haaretz has the details on the latest Peace Now report on Israeli settlements. Despite slightly different figures the report is fairly consistent with the Times story done last November and is quite telling for obvious reasons.

A report issued Wednesday by Peace Now claims that 32 percent of land held for settlement and outpost use is private Palestinian property, as is 24 percent of the land on which the settlements are actually built.

The organization says the report is based on "official figures" from the Israel Defense Forces' Civil Administration.

Shrum & Dumber

Political advisor Bob Shrum says he pushed Edwards to vote to give Bush authority to invade Iraq in 2002, and that he regrets it. Shrum, for those of you who don't know, is best known for his 0-8 record in presidential races. Amazingly, however, he was still widely courted by Democrats in 2004.

From the Post:

[Shrum] is rich, famous and, despite his losing streak, still in great demand -- Kerry, John Edwards and Dick Gephardt all vied for his services in 2004.

I doubt very much, given Shrum's anonymity outside of Beltway news junkies, that this will help or hurt Edwards, who is wisely minimizing Shrum's influence in the decision.

"John Edwards cast his vote based on the advice of national security advisers and the intelligence he was given, not political advisers," [Edwards spokesman David] Ginsberg said. "He got political advice on both sides of the argument, and made his own decision based on what he thought was right, not political calculation."

If there is one lesson worth taking from this story it is this: candidates should spend less time worrying about what political consultants think -- especially in matters of life and death.

Alec Baldwin has a blog?

I admit, I would probably prefer an Al Gore presidency to the current Democratic candidates. But Alec Baldwin's subtle endorsement of the former Vice President is a full of simpleton nonsense.

He writes:

This has been an unusually mild winter. November and December both quite warm. And record January temperatures. (On January 6th, I walked along Central Park here in NY in 72 degree weather.)

Cold weather from the North fought its way into this area in February, and we had five or six weeks of true winter cold, but it is running out the door a lot quicker than it came in.

Is this what global warming's first act will look like?

What? Not only does the warm weather tell us virtually nothing about global warming, but it tells of even less about why Al Gore should be President, or why Alec Baldwin wrote this useless piece.

Alec, climate change is real and scary. This is clear. And by all accounts Al Gore would be a good president in regards to this very important issue. Why not actually articulate that as opposed to this half-assed attempt to be clever?

Good News/Bad News: March 13, 2007

The Bad News: One of our generals says homosexuality is immoral and refuses to apologize; the new Democratic Congress reverts back to their capitulating ways, to the detriment of the troops in Iraq; our Justice Department and White House are corrupt in more ways than we had realized.

The Good News: We now have an openly non-theist public official in Congress; TimesSelect is now free to anyone with a college e-mail address; the Congressional Democrats aren't letting the Justice Department (Gonzales)of the hook; and the impeach Cheney movement may have some legs.

Dick Cheney's Legacy

Generations from now, Dick Cheney may well be remembered most for his unceasing assault on dissent in matters of war and peace.

Some highlights from the last three years.

March 12 at AIPAC

"When members of Congress pursue an antiwar strategy that's been called "slow bleeding," they are not supporting the troops, they are undermining them," Mr. Cheney said, adding, "Anyone can say they support the troops and we should take them at their word, but the proof will come when it;s time to provide the money."

Jan 14 2007: On Opposition to the Surge

"He's the guy who's got to decide how to use the force and where to deploy the force," Cheney said. "And Congress obviously has to support the effort through the power of the purse. So they've got a role to play, and we certainly recognize that. But you also cannot run a war by committee."

Any attempts to block Bush's efforts would undermine the troops, Cheney said. He took particular aim at Democratic lawmakers who have blasted the president for increasing troops despite opposition from Congress, military advisers and a disgruntled electorate that in November ousted the GOP as the majority party on Capitol Hill.

Aug 9, 2006: On Lamont Primary Victory

"I look at what happened yesterday, it strikes me that it's a perhaps unfortunate and significant development from the standpoint of the Democratic Party, that what it says about the direction the party appears to be heading in when they, in effect, purge a man like Joe Lieberman, who was just six years ago their nominee for Vice President, is of concern, especially over the issue of Joe's support with respect to national efforts in the global war on terror.

The thing that's partly disturbing about it is the fact that, the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task."

Sept. 7 2004: on The Presidential Election

Stepping up the battle over national security, Vice President Dick Cheney warned on Tuesday that the country would be at risk of a terror attack if it made "the wrong choice" in November, and President Bush accused Senator John Kerry of adopting the antiwar language of his Democratic primary rival Howard Dean ...

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.

"

Off Topic: Isiah Thomas

Sorry to get off topic here, but how the hell does Isiah Thomas -- inarguably the worst owner/GM/head coach in the history of the NBA -- get a contract extension?

The Onion Takes on Health Care

The great Gore Vidal once said: "It is not enough to suceed, others must fail."

Here The Onion applies this logic to universal health care.

Providing health care for all would completely undermine the whole idea of health care. If every last one of the 40 million uninsured bozos in this country is going to get access to the vast, virtually unnavigable system of medical care we chosen few now enjoy, then I no longer even want it ... Lack of access to health care is the seventh leading cause of death in the country, and that says something. It doesn't get much more elite than being part of a club other people are literally dying to get into. So what incentive would there be if everyone were guaranteed equal health care, regardless of income, age, or employment status? Who would be left to proudly tell their grandchildren about the glory days of PPOs? That is a future I'd rather not imagine, thank you very much.

More stupidity from Bill O'Reilly

The depth of Bill O'Reilly's ignorance evidently has no bounds. He had Bill Maher on The Factor last week and they discussed the civilian death toll in Iraq. O'Reilly, apparently just making shit up of the top of his head, called the Lancet Study, which estimated that 655,000 Iraqis have died due to the war, a "far left web site."

This is beyond ridiculous.

Let us be clear. Not only is the Lancet Study not "far left," it is also not a "web site." Here is The Washington Post description of the study.

The survey was done by Iraqi physicians and overseen by epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health. The findings are being published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet.

Is there any statistic or reality that O'Reilly won't blame on a"far left web site?"

The Fox News Debate & The Netroots

Marc Cooper thinks the blogs were mistaken in pressuring Democrats to cancel the Fox News debate. And, as he notes, so does Dennis Kucinich.

"If you want to be the President of the United States, you can't be afraid to deal with people with whom you disagree politically," Kucinich said. "No one is further removed from Fox's political philosophy than I am, but fear should not dictate decisions that affect hundreds of millions of Americans and billions of others around the world who are starving for real leadership."

"I'm prepared to discuss the war, health care, trade, or any other issue anytime, anywhere, with any audience, answering any question from any media. And any candidate who won't shouldn't be President of the United States."

He raises an interesting point. But its hard for me to fault those blogs and other liberal groups -- here, here and here for a few of many examples -- that pushed the Democrats to stop playing ball with a channel that has become comically stupid with its latest ideological slings and arrows.

The Others

In 2002 Howard Zinn wrote a great piece about the deaths of civilians from the countries on the other end of our guns, and how they were so often ignored by the media, and Americans as a whole.

I do believe that if people could see the consequences of the bombing campaign as vividly as we were all confronted with the horrifying photos in the wake of September 11, if they saw on television night after night the blinded and maimed children, the weeping parents of Afghanistan, they might ask: Is this the way to combat terrorism?

Surely it is time, half a century after Hiroshima, to embrace a universal morality, to think of all children, everywhere, as our own.

In this spirit I link to an article in today's Washington Post which pays humble tribute to a fallen civilian -- one of the "others" -- who has been killed in Iraq.

Unlike the U.S. soldiers who die in this conflict, the names of most Iraqi victims will never be published, consigned to the anonymity that death in the Iraqi capital brings these days

The Death of Conservatism as we Know it.

This letter to Andrew Sullvian is quite good.

Here is a portion:

Bush and company are not the exception, they're the proof; they're not something new, some aberration, they're just the same old same old come bubbling up from underneath and finally to power. And that's why Bush's (s)election in 2000 was
the best thing that could have happened to this country, a real blessing in disguise. Now we can see what's really down there in the dark. We can reject it, and go on - and we'd better go on, because with what we have to face nationally, internationally and globally, we don't have much more time to waste on this studidity. "Conservatism", as we have known it, is over. Too bad the cost has been so high. But as Jung said, those who will not learn will be made to feel.

Sirota on Democrats and the War

There is an inclination for progressives to apologize and make excuses for Democrats. They did it for Kerry and Edwards in 2004 regarding their support for the war (among other things), and it is happening now in the case of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Caucus.

This pattern is born out of fear -- mainly of losing elections to Republicans. But this fear is unfounded. Americans want a new health care system, want better wages, and, most importantly want to end this war. And it is up to the progressive community to apply pressure to the Democrats, so that they adhere to the will of the people.

Referencing the latest Iraq War proposal by House Democrats, David Sirota, as he often does, hits the mark with this post.

To those automatons who are so blinded by partisan rage that they can’t see the need to pressure Democrats, I say that this new announcement [setting a date certain for leaving Iraq] by Democrats is a vindication for all of us who have tried - like studious movement participants - to hold both parties’ feet to the fire.

National Review

This line made me laugh.

Writing in the March 19 National Review, Rob Long admits that watching the judge [in the Anna Nicole Smith Trial] cry on television he thought: "What are we fighting so hard for? Let the terrorists win. They have a point."

Labor supports Single-Payer

The AFL-CIO has decided to endorse Medicare for All.

Amen!

Here is an editorial from yesterday's Capitol Times that hammers home a very important point as it pertains to the 2008 presidential race.

The AFL-CIO should sign on for a single-payer system. Then the national federation should in combination with state and local union leaders make it abundantly clear to New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and others pursuing the Democratic nomination that it is impossible to seek the presidency as a champion of labor without embracing HR 676 and campaigning on a promise to stop tinkering around the edges of the health care crisis and address it head-on.

Sullivan on Coulter Part II

Andrew Sullivan at his best.

I watched Ann Coulter last night in the gayest way I could. I was on a stairmaster at a gym, slack-jawed at her proud defense of calling someone a "faggot" on the same stage as presidential candidates and as an icon of today's conservative movement. The way in which Fox News and Sean Hannity and, even more repulsively, Pat Cadell, shilled for her was a new low for Fox, I think - and for what remains of decent conservatism. "We're all friends here," Hannity chuckled at the end. Yes, they were. And no faggots were on the show to defend themselves. That's fair and balanced.

Obama and AIPAC

Some have expressed hope that Barack Obama may try to expand the narrow parameters of debate in Washington as it pertains to the Israel/Palestine issue. But clearly it can't be a good sign that Marty Peretz is impressed with Obama's take on the Middle East.

Barack Obama delivered a speech Friday afternoon to an AIPAC meeting in Chicago. I believe he must have satisfied (nearly) all of those who had been skeptical of his grasp of the Israeli conundrum. Very much satisfied them. Me, included. (His was an extremely sophisticated analysis.) And he must also have disillusioned all of those who'd hoped--like the lefty blogosphere--that he'd be oh-so-sympathetic to the self-inflicted Palestinians.

Strange Bedfellows: paleocons and the left?

What a twisted political time we live in. The most recent issue of The American Conservative, Pat Buchanan's journal of paleoconservative thought, has three articles that -- with some important distinctions -- could have been published in Z Magazine.

What If We Leave?

When nightmare scenarios are used to justify endless war, it’s time to wake up.

Who Will Stop The Next War?

If Americans sickened by the carnage of Iraq wish to stop an even more disastrous war on Iran, they had best get cracking.

Honest Broker: Jimmy Carter’s book stirs a critical debate.

The ground seems to be shifting under our feet. M.J. Rosenberg, a progressive Zionist activist who works for Israel Policy Forum, wrote that he was surprised by the attitudes expressed at a Washington social gathering where Carter’s book had come up. The book had empowered gentiles to voice criticisms they have long held.

On Andrew Sullivan

Look, Ann Coulter is a vicious bigot, or at least she plays one on TV. So it is no surprise to see the attacks coming toward her, even from the right.

But this Andrew Sullivan comment on the matter is rather troubling.

I'm not being an hysteric about Coulter. Republicans, if they are serious about reaching the people they lost in 2006, need to start distancing themselves from her. She's their Michael Moore.

Now, there are certainly plenty of valid critiques of Michael Moore's style, and reasonable people can disagree about his politics. But to say that there is anything close to a moral equivalence between Moore and Coulter -- a racist, homophobic, simpleton -- is beyond absurd.

Sullivan discredits himself when he engages in this kind of McCarthyite nonsense.

Around the Web

*Lester Grinspoon writing in The Boston Globe, hails marijuana as a wonder drug -- and recent studies back up the claim.

*Health care is now the top domestic concern for Americans and, as the New York Times reports, a "majority of Americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American."

*This poll of right-wing bloggers is just insane.

Do you think mankind is the primary cause of global warming?

Yes (0) -- 0%
No (59) -- 100%

On Newspapers: is a more hopeful picture emerging?

Robert Kuttner has a very sharp piece at the Columbia Journalism Review on the future of newspapers and journalism. This is worth reading in full.

"[A] far more hopeful picture is emerging. In this scenario the mainstream press, though late to the party, figures out how to make serious money from the Internet, uses the Web to enrich traditional journalistic forms, and retains its professionalism—along with a readership that is part print, part Web. Newspapers stay alive as hybrids. The culture and civic mission of daily print journalism endure.

Opposing Hillary Clinton

Originally published at Oped News.

The Other Reason to Oppose Hillary Clinton

Michael Corcoran

Hillary Clinton's enabling of the Iraq war disaster, and her subsequent refusal to apologize for it, has by far been the left's biggest gripe the presidential candidate, and understandably so. Her role in enabling this painfully misguided war is a stain on her record, and on this country.

But her view on Iraq, however unforgivable, only represents part of the reason why progressives should oppose a Clinton candidacy with vigor. And even if she were to get down on her knees, admit her foreign policy follies, and beg us to accept her apology for the infamous 2002 vote to authorize Bush to go to war, it would be a huge mistake for the left to support her candidacy. The other reason? It's her affiliation with the Democratic Leadership Council, stupid!

The DLC--best known for its sketchy alliance with big-business, its McCartyite attacks on the anti-war left, its loving admiration for Joe Lieberman, and its hawkish stances on foreign policy--has been trying to take the liberalism out of the Democratic Party for more than two decades now, and in many ways has succeeded.

It was when the DLC was at it its most influential that Bill Clinton began his "era of big government is over" campaign, and passed historical cuts to welfare. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, which has led to a drastic increase in media consolidation, was also another unfortunate byproduct of the DLC president's capitulations.

The group has founder has made a habit out of attacking anti-war candidates, as seen in 2003 when founder Al From along with Bruce Reed, attacked the Howard Dean campaign, saying it was from the "McGovern/Mondale wing" of the Democratic Party "defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest group elitism at home." When Ned Lamont was running against Lieberman in the Connecticut primary, the DLC lamented what they called return of "liberal fundamentalism."

In short, the main reasons why Democrats were elected in November--sharp condemnation of the war, and a push against our neoliberal trade policies--are dismissed by the DLC as losing issues that ought to be permanently abandoned by the Democratic Party. Their reaction to the 2006 midterm was to declare victory for the vital center (pointing largely to Lieberman's victory, which resorted to taking a de-facto endorsement from the RNC) and urging Democrats to, among other things, "exercise self-restraint in promoting new public-sector activism."

And Now that Tom Vilsack, who chaired the DLC from 2005-2007, is out of the race, there is simply no doubt that Clinton is the DLC candidate.

Her picture rotates among the top of their web site where she is prominently touted as a member of their "leadership team," along with From and new DLC Chair Harold Ford, who disgracefully voted for the Military Commissions Act, which effectively legitimized torture and killed habeas corpus.

To be sure, Clinton has worn the DLC hat well. On top of her support for the war in Iraq, she has supported free trade agreements like NAFTA; voted for the Patriot Act--twice; given speeches at AIPAC events with aggressive rhetoric on Iran; cosponsored flag burning legislation and said she would support torture in the case of an "imminent threat to millions of Americans."

Contrarily, other Democrats who could serve as possible alternatives to Clinton as a nominee have been running away from the DLC. John Edwards, once closely affiliated with the group has taken a decidedly more populist tone on the budget, trade and Iraq. Al Gore, a founding member of the DLC, has been straying from them ever since he made his 2000 convention speech. He advocated for a single-payer health care in 2002, endorsed Dean in 2003, and gave unambiguously strong critiques of Bush's war long before it became politically fashionable to do so. In 2003 Barack Obama, upon learning that the DLC listed him as one of "100 New Democrats to Watch," promptly asked for his name to be removed.

Cleary Democrats are running away from the DLC, if not due to personal opposition to its policies, than at least due to an understanding that its platform is no longer palatable to winning elections.

Moreover, the Bush nightmare has enlivened a spirit of change in this country, a small hint of which was seen in the 2006 election where a new Democratic majority was won largely on populist, anti-war platforms. Consider Sen. Jim Webb's response to Bush's State of the Union which, contrary to the DLC line, spoke of only two things: income inequality, and leaving Iraq. This momentum could provide a chance for the party to break free from what has been an Iron grip of triangulation.

A Clinton presidency, however, would be a huge blow to such an effort, and a huge boost to the DLC. If triumphant in 2008, they would be able to claim that they--not the netroots, union workers, or its political base--have been behind the only two Democratic presidents since 1976. Surely, they point to this as evidence that a run-to-the right electoral strategy is indeed the only path to success and continue the Party down the road that has already failed them once before.

For too long now the Democratic Party has been woeful in representing working class Americans, weak and compliant in the face of Republican power, and a chief enabler the grossly misguided and amoral invasion of Iraq and the loss of liberty that has come with it.

Clinton, and her DLC brethren are not part of the solution--but rather, part of the problem.