Progress Now Action

What will Mr. Bush leave for the children when families go to our national parks?  Under the radar he is having his EPA rewrite long standing rules that will encourage coal power plants to be constructed much closer to our national parks.

Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post reporter, writes:

The new regulations, which are likely to be finalized this summer, rewrite a provision of the Clean Air Act that applies to "Class 1 areas," federal lands that currently have the highest level of protection under the law. Opponents predict the changes will worsen visibility at many of the nation's most prized tourist destinations, including Virginia's Shenandoah, Colorado's Mesa Verde and North Dakota's Theodore Roosevelt national parks...

For 30 years, regulators have measured pollution levels in the parks, over both three-hour and 24-hour increments, to capture the spikes in emissions that occur during periods of peak energy demand. The new rule would average the levels over a year so that spikes in pollution levels would not violate the law...

"It's like if you're pulled over by a cop for going 75 miles per hour in a 55 miles-per-hour zone, and you say, 'If you look at how I've driven all year, I've averaged 55 miles per hour,' " said Mark Wenzler, director of the National Parks Conservation Association's clean-air programs. "It allows you to vastly underestimate the impact of these emissions."

Why is this important to the health impact on our national parks?

Yesterday, the National Parks Conservation Association, an advocacy group, issued a report estimating that the rule would ease the way for the construction of 28 new coal-fired power plants within 186 miles of 10 national parks. In each of the next 50 years, the report concludes, the new plants would emit a total of 122 million tons of carbon dioxide, 79,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, 52,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, and 4,000 pounds of toxic mercury into the air over and around the Great Smoky Mountains, Zion and eight other national parks.

I would argue that the most noticeable sign is visible but there are invisible signs that would adversely impact the national parks, including higher levels of fallout of mercury and increased acidity in local water sources which will lead to higher mortality rates of wildlife and vegetation die off.

It is immoral for Mr. Bush and his cohort to only act in their own economic interest because he won't live long enough to see the harm that his policies will do to our children and grandchildren.

So fire up your phones and email and call and write your elected representatives to tell them that they must halt through legislative means this act of betrayal to our children.

Nothing is more infuriating than to see Republicans using the voter fraud meme to steal the right to vote from elderly Americans.  This is the truth of the matter: The efforts of Republicans to have picture I.D. with birth certificates at polling centers is disenfranchising the elderly from their right to vote. 

What is amazing is that the largest senior citizen organization, A.A.R.P., is  doing little to halt this Republican led movement to disenfranchise the elderly at least at the national level. (I will point out that the 2008 Advocacy Agenda by AARP does list voter I.D. as a "burdensome document requirement".)  State A.A.R.P. organizations are more on the ball: 

The A.A.R.P. of Texas, in January of 2008, released this:

AUSTIN, TX – As many as 18 percent of voters age 65 or older could be negatively impacted by efforts to enact stricter voter identification requirements, an AARP Texas official said today in testimony before the House Elections Committee.

Amanda Fredriksen, AARP Texas manager of advocacy, noted there has been little if any evidence of election fraud in Texas to date to justify any such measure, calling voter ID proposals “a solution in search of a problem.”

The Michigan A.A.R.P. has filed an amicus brief in 2006:

AARP has filed a friend of the court brief in the Michigan Supreme Court challenging a state law that would require voters to produce a photo ID in order to cast a ballot at the polls.The case, In re Request for Advisory Opinion Regarding Constitutionality of 2005 PA 71, was initiated by the Court itself, which has called for briefs to be filed on the matter by the state’s Attorney General and other interested parties.Based on these submissions, the Court will issue an “advisory opinion” regarding the 2005 law.

The Indiana A.A.R.P., in 2005, expressed concern:

The head of Indiana's chapter of the American Association of Retired Persons says a new state law requiring Hoosier voters to show an ID at the polls could put a burden on older, ailing Hoosiers who don't have driver's licenses.
State AARP director Nancy Griffin said a recent survey by the group found that 10 percent of registered Indiana voters age 60 and older lack driver's licenses.

In 2002 the A.A.R.P. of Pennsylvania held this position:

HARRISBURG, Pa. -- AARP Pennsylvania opposes Senate Bill 824 which would require Pennsylvanians to produce photo identification in order to vote in the Commonwealth.

Digby has a story:

Perhaps no one knows that as well as 97-year-old Shirley Freeda Preiss. She was born at home in Clinton, Kentucky in 1910, before women had the right to vote, and never had a birth certificate. Shirley has voted in every presidential election since FDR first ran in 1932, and proudly describes herself as a "died-in-the-wool Democrat." After living in Arizona for two years, she was eagerly looking forward to casting her ballot in the February primary for the first major woman candidate for President, Hillary Clinton. But lacking a birth certificate or even elementary school records to prove she's a native-born American citizen, the state of Arizona's bureaucrats determined that this former school-teacher who taught generations of Americans shouldn't be allowed to vote.

"I have a constitutional right to vote, don't I?" she asks with her soft Southern drawl. "I didn't get to vote because of a birth certificate. What am I going to do now?"

Her strong-willed 78-year-old son, Nathan "Joey" Nemnich, a World War II veteran, is infuriated. "I'm pissed. She's an American citizen who worked her whole life and I want her to vote," he says. He went down to the local Motor Vehicle Division to get her an Arizona ID and register her to vote, armed with copies of his mother's three drivers' licenses from her previous home in Texas, along with copies of her Social Security and Medicare cards. All that wasn't good enough for the state of Arizona. "The sons of bitches are taking away our Constitution," Nemnich says.

The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights states in 2007:

First, no citizen should have to pay to vote. This basic principle, a key inspiration for the Twenty-Fourth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, would be greatly undermined by the McConnell amendment. While it is difficult for most people to imagine living without a photo ID, it is indisputable that many individuals do not have one – and it costs time and money to obtain it...

The right to vote, and to have your vote counted, is the most important civil right that we Americans have. And photo ID requirements are one of the greatest threats to fair and equal voting rights today. Congress should be in the business of encouraging full participation of our citizenry, not developing ways to limit the right to vote.

Amy Silverman, Salon.com, from a 1999 report, writes:

...vintage John McCain. His MO is this: Get the story out -- even if it's a negative story. Get it out first, with the spin you want, with the details you want and without the details you don't want...

Candor is the McCain trademark, but what the journalists who slobber over the senator fail to realize is that the candor is premeditated and polished...

And only a handful of people remember the details of Cindy McCain's 1994 "outing" for drug addiction and drug pilfering, and the work of the McCain machine to protect her.

Will the media question the flip flop of McCain on our troops in Iraq?  I doubt it. 

We have all been horrified by the scenes of devastation in China from the 7.9 Richter scale quake.  What we are seeing is a massive effort by the Chinese government to come to the rescue of its citizens during this time of national emergency.  With 100,000 troops and police being sent to aid in the rescue efforts in the province of Sichuan there has been extensive coverage by Chinese media.

I am wondering at what will Sichuan province look like in a few years? 

The worst natural disaster to hit an American region was Hurricane Katrina in 2005.  The city of New Orleans is being rebuilt to a very different standard than what pre-Katrina NOLA was in both population demographics and urban planning to meet that demographic.

Why cannot New Orleans' Lower Ninth Ward be restored and why cannot undamaged public housing be simply cleaned up and made livable for those who are now refugees?  There is no need to destroy those thousands of units of housing that had sustained minimal damage.  What is the plan except to raze them for housing that will have no tax burden to the City of New Orleans but will generate income for the city?  Even now there is the underground of protest against the destruction of the city that is called the soul of America. 

Will the province of Sichuan go the way of NOLA?  How will the Chinese deal with this great disaster?  Will the cities of Sichuan still be in a state of rubble and inattention like the Lower Ninth Ward of NOLA in three years?  (Because the residents of the Lower Ninth Ward are seeking the right of return to their homes still.)  Will the Chinese government see this as an opportunity to remove "undesirables" like the communities of New Orleans have done?

China should not imitate the dishonor and shame that is now the hallmark of the recovery of our American City of New Orleans. 

Ben Smith, Politico.com, writes:

Obama, whose campaign jumped on Robert Novak's suggestion earlier this year of Clinton dirty tricks, mocked Novak's column today that Michelle has nixed Clinton as a vice president, Carrie Budoff Brown reports...

Communications director Robert Gibbs suggested afterward that the article should be set aside "in case of a toilet paper emergency."

LOL

We have read, in the back pages of the paper, that the Army has met it's recruiting goal for FY2007:

All of the active duty branches met or exceeded their recruiting goals for the fiscal year. On the Reserve side, four of the six reserve componants met or exceeded their recruiting goals.

If that is true then why does this happen?  Colby Buzzell writes:

That was a little over five years ago. After serving in Iraq, I elected to use my GI Bill to enroll in a photography course at San Francisco City College. I felt good, and I had a feeling that the days to come were all going to be good as well.

On way out of my building two weeks ago, I checked my mailbox and found a letter from the Department of the Army with "Important Document" printed in all caps on the middle. I immediately felt sick, so I went back to my room, locked the door, grabbed a beer from the fridge and stared out my window for a while...

I'm now going back to Iraq for a second time because people like me - existing service members - are the only people at the Army's disposal.

I've read Colby's book, which was based in part on his blog, My War.  It was an excellent book about the "boots on the ground" life of an infantryman in Iraq, which had little to do with the "grand strategy" but only with the necessities of living and surviving in a war zone.  What I found in reading Colby's book was the vivid retelling of his first firefight and how he was astonished that an Iraqi was still alive after his squad had fired so many rounds at the man and how in the excitement of the andrenaline rush the time elapsed that seemed so long was so short.

[BTW- the only other method is stop-loss by the Army.  The CS Monitor states that in 2006 "currently stop-loss is being used to extend the duty of 12,500 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan".]

I wish Colby Buzzell that he survive his second tour of duty because this war will not end.  (Remember that Rep. Rangel floated the proposal to reinstate the draft and was quickly shot down by Pelosi and Hoyer?)  The only way to end it quickly is what Colby believes:

Many people believe that the draft ended the Vietnam War. I'm convinced that reinstating the draft would definitely end this war. Rich, connected people will always find a way to evade mandatory service, but what about the rest of America? The middle class - people with good jobs and nice lives - would perhaps riot if the government even suggested that it expected from them what the Army expects from veterans.

Never more...or is it one more time before the Statue of Liberty is beheaded?  What else can one make of this assault on the Constitution and the rule of law?  Mr. Bush follows the dictum of Joseph Stalin"s "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."

As close followers of our democracy and election process has shown that there is an impasse with the seating of new FEC members due to the fact that Mr. Bush wants to seat Mr. Hans von Spakovsky.  Paul Kiel, Talkingpointsmemo.com, reporter writes:

It is because of that record -- one of ignoring, marginalizing, and intimidating career lawyers in order to institute restrictive voting laws all over the country, a pattern amounting to "institutional sabotage" as one former career attorney there put it -- that Senate Democrats (Barack Obama and Russ Feingold in particular) opposed his nomination to the Federal Election Commission.

In other words, Hans von Spakovsky is utilizing methods to suppress voters that is against the historic mission of the Voting Rights Division in the Department of Justice of increasing access to voting for all citizens.

What is happening now is that there is not enough members of the FEC to take any action(s) whatsoever.  This includes the fact that Mr. McCain is violating election laws, including his own McCain-Feingold law of campaign financing limits.  But, Mr. Bush has just sent Congress a revised list of nominees to fill out the FEC board.  

It is important to let the media and your Senator know that this "compromise" by Mr. Bush is nothing of the sort.  He has nominated the vote suppressor Hans von Sakovsky again.  What is telling is that he has not renominated David Mason.  Paul Kiel continues:

Mason is one of the only two seated commissioners, and it just so happens that he's been creating a whole lot of trouble for John McCain lately...

In February, the McCain campaign notified the FEC that it was withdrawing from the public financing system for the primary. Although McCain had once opted in, his campaign said that it had never received public funds and so could opt out. The move meant that McCain would not be bound by the $54 million spending limit for the system.

But Mason balked. McCain couldn't just opt out -- the FEC had to approve his request before he could. And Mason also indicated that a tricky bank loan might mean that McCain had locked himself in to the system...

And now Mason is getting the boot.

If the compromise means that Republicans agree to a seperated vote for commissioners then von Spakosky will be out for good.  But getting rid of Dave Mason can only be good for Mr. McCain because it will forestall any action on the criminal actions by his campaign.

I would point out that Mr. McCain may have a new headache.  Judicial Watch has filed a suit about Mr. McCains fundraiser held on a foreign nation's soil- Britain.  Klaus Marre, TheHill.com, reports:

Judicial Watch argues that providing a venue for the event free of charge was an illegal in-kind contribution from two foreign nationals — Lord Rothschild OM GBE and The Honorable Nathaniel Rothschild.

“While it is, as yet, unclear how much money was raised during the luncheon, had the venue not been donated to the McCain campaign, the net profit from the event would have been significantly reduced,” the group said in a statement.

What does this mean?  Is it going to be that foreign investors in Mr. McCain's campaign will have influence on foreign policies that impact their respective countries? 

Mr. McCain has a lot of serious questions to answer to the American people for when he is willing to hold fundraisers on foreign soil for his campaign.

There has been much criticism of Thomas Friedman and his stance with regard to Mr. Bush's Iraq war, but I will give credit where credit is due.  I could not agree more with his most recent column entitled, "Who Will Tell the People?"  It seems that if he is reaching out to the pulse of the public versus living in the D.C. echo chamber it is refreshing to read this:

Traveling the country these past five months while writing a book, I’ve had my own opportunity to take the pulse, far from the campaign crowds. My own totally unscientific polling has left me feeling that if there is one overwhelming hunger in our country today it’s this: People want to do nation-building. They really do. But they want to do nation-building in America.

What do we ask of ourselves?  What will this generation leave for the sons and daughters?  It is a wail and gnashing of teeth and beating of breast to know that this nation, our country is on a path towards decay.  Mr. Friedman writes:

A few weeks ago, my wife and I flew from New York’s Kennedy Airport to Singapore. In J.F.K.’s waiting lounge we could barely find a place to sit. Eighteen hours later, we landed at Singapore’s ultramodern airport, with free Internet portals and children’s play zones throughout. We felt, as we have before, like we had just flown from the Flintstones to the Jetsons. If all Americans could compare Berlin’s luxurious central train station today with the grimy, decrepit Penn Station in New York City, they would swear we were the ones who lost World War II.

We are bombarded with the corporate media drum beat of "We, America, U.S. of A., is the greatest nation on the planet."  But then when those in power who are afraid to confront Americans with hard truths it is a disservice to this nation.  Mr. Bush and his cohort is afraid of the truth because it is only the truth that will bring the unblinding of the American people to understand that we now must roll up our sleeves for the hard work of justice.  To heal the wounds that have been inflicted on the bedrock of this nation- the Constitution, rule of law, and the dignity of being human.

This is what Thomas Friedman leaves out when he writes:

Much nonsense has been written about how Hillary Clinton is “toughening up” Barack Obama so he’ll be tough enough to withstand Republican attacks. Sorry, we don’t need a president who is tough enough to withstand the lies of his opponents. We need a president who is tough enough to tell the truth to the American people. Any one of the candidates can answer the Red Phone at 3 a.m. in the White House bedroom. I’m voting for the one who can talk straight to the American people on national TV — at 8 p.m. — from the White House East Room.

I'm sick of listening to the demagogery by two of the presidential candidates and that it is only an external "Other" which threatens us.  I am not afraid of the motley band of "evil doers" because our belief in our ideals is our strength not in the billions of dollars that have been spent on weapons and standing armies.  

I stand with the Founders of this nation on bedrock principals embodied within the three documents- the Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.  We have come to grief only when we deviate from our ideals.

Amy Goodman had an interview with ILWU officer Jack Heyman about the May Day strike.  Jack Heyman said:

...but really, the most stunning solidarity came from the port workers in Iraq, who struck in solidarity with us. And that was really a very courageous move, because they’re literally under the gun of a military occupation there.

That little bit of information I had not seen at all until Friday.

I seen this posted to other list serves on the longshore union staging a strike to shut down west coast ports.

However the media has not covered this important new alliance by unions with the anti-war movement in America.  This adds a powerful force to the anti-war movement.  The only newspaper that has covered the event from the anti-war reason for the work stoppage is the Seattle Post Intelligencer but only in the business section via Alex Veiga, AP business writer, reports:

LOS ANGELES -- West Coast cargo traffic came to a halt Thursday as port workers staged daylong anti-war protests to commemorate May Day, terminal operators said Thursday.

Thousands of dockworkers did not show up for the morning shift, leaving ships and truck drivers idle at ports from Long Beach to Seattle, Pacific Maritime Association spokesman Steve Getzug said.

This is how the DenverPost.com has edited the May Day strike by the ILWU:

SAN FRANCISCO, May 1 /PRNewswire/ -- The International Longshore and Warehouse Union today struck West Coast ports from Southern California to the Pacific Northwest, bringing cargo operations to a virtual standstill, as the Union's leadership defied orders from the independent Coast Arbitrator to "notify its Locals and members of its contractual obligation and direct all members to report to work as they normally do during the day shift on May 1, 2008."

The Denver Post has done a disservice to its readership by leading with a plain Jane headline "Longshore Union Strikes West Coast Ports" that is followed by a misleading opening paragraph.  One reads the corporate view until the fifth paragraph:

Today's action, which essentially shut down all major ports along the coast, culminates a series of events that began when ILWU members passed a resolution opposing the U.S. war in Iraq. After seeking permission under contract rules to stop work during the day shift on May 1st, ILWU leaders later retracted their request, and claimed that any decision not to work on May 1st would be made by individual workers.

The reportage is muddy for the reader to see a clear connection between the union action and the anti-war movement.  The impression is that the union is using the anti-war movement as a bargaining chip in typical labor-management negotiations.  Go to the ILWU website and read their statement for May Day.

A quick search of the Rocky Mountain News website shows nothing.  No mention at all using the search terms "West Coast Strike" and "ILWU".

So the Denver Post posits an anti-union spin by the management (the strike is for ulterior motives) that drives a wedge between the union and the anti-war movement.

The Rocky Mountain News leaves it readership in the dark about an important step in bringing unions into the antii-war movement.

Why don't you write a letter to the Rocky Mountain News? 

Like Sauraman who had to go begging so should Richard B. Cheney and his shadow government should not benefit from government money due to his belief that the Office of the Vice President is neither a part of the executive or the legislative branches of government.  Since he believes that his office should be above any checks and balances between the three co-equal branches of  government (i.e., our organizational table) as envisioned by the founders and written into the Constitution, it is time to use the power of inherent subpeona to literally enforce the will of Congress on Richard Cheney's acts of treason against the Constitution through the setting up a seperate government that acts against the government in power.

Dan Froomkin, Washington Post journalist, writes:

How far will Vice President Cheney go to shield himself and his office from public scrutiny?

Last spring, Cheney asserted that he wasn't subject to executive-branch rules about classified information because he wasn't actually part of the executive branch.

Now his office argues that he and his staff are completely immune from congressional oversight. That's right: Completely immune.

This cannot be seen as anything other than to place the Office of the Vice President above the Constitution and has regal powers that is in direct opposition to the Constitution.  What Cheney and his lawyers are arguing for is to create a imperial power that is above the laws of this nation.

Of course the corporate media has failed to tell the American people of this internal threat to our nation.  Froomkin continues with a very short list of U.S. journalists that covered it:

Carrie Johnson, Washington Post: Their refusal marks the latest skirmish in a lengthy battle over the scope of presidential authority and the administration's treatment of detainees. Under Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, the Justice Department has refused to enforce congressional subpoenas for testimony.

Laurie Kellman, Associated Press: A previous dispute is being hashed out in federal court, with Conyers' committee suing White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former presidential counsel Harriet Miers for refusing to comply with subpoenas on the firings of federal prosecutors. The White House maintains that their testimony is off-limits from congressional oversight under executive privilege.

Now why would journalists, who have a special duty that they are charged with in the Constitution, fail in their duty to the American people over treasonous acts committed by Richard Cheney?

Is it because we are now in the decline phase of Pax Americana?  The rise of America was in the last century and that in the new century we are in decline not of the slow fall like the Roman Empire or British Empire but a decline fueled on steriods and we, our generation, will live to endure such a fall.

If there is such a thing as the one man theory of history then can we disprove it because the people can be greater than one man? 

Do you feel that politicians see us as a means to an end?  How else can it be when this is coming? San Francisco Chronicle reporters Zachary Coile writes:

“They are the biggest hypocrites in the world,” said Medea Benjamin, the San Francisco-based founder of the anti-war group CodePink. “They want to paint the Republicans as warmongers and they want to keep funding the war, and they think we don’t see through this?”

What was it that Democratic candidates were elected to do?  End the war.  As many other commentators have noted that is the reason the Democratic controlled Congress is held in such low esteem.  They have singularly failed in carrying out the will of the people.  Coile continues:

Pelosi was pressed on the issue last week during a sit-down with CNN’s Larry King. “Your party became the majority in the House primarily pledging to end the war,” King said. “That didn’t happen.”

“No,” Pelosi acknowledged. “It didn’t happen because we had hoped that the president would listen to the will of the people and at least be willing to compromise on … how the war is conducted and some timetable for redeployment of our troops.”

Congress watchers said Democrats are still stung after losing repeated battles with the White House and Republicans over the war last year.

“Last year they tried a lot of confrontation and they went nowhere,” said Louis Fisher, a constitutional scholar at the Library of Congress and an expert on congressional war powers. He said Democrats still fear being portrayed as putting U.S. troops at risk if they try to shut off war funds.

Either Speaker Pelosi is ignorant or blind to what Mr. Bush sees the legislative branch as nothing more than an ATM for his war(s)?

As other campaigns have run like "The Backbone" and "Fighting Dems" to backstop and support Democratic candidates and elected officials.  But do they really listen to?  They listen to the inside the "Beltway" consultants that feed them b.s. about what is important, so important, that the lives of Americans are worth less.

Who supports their misperceptions about "strength and American patriotism" because that "voice" is louder than our voices who go to their offices to talk to them about getting out of Iraq?  Corporate media who bangs the bloody, Republican drum about "putting our troops at risk if funding is cut off" by offering their viewers no other views except the view that it is acceptable for Americans to die without cause.

It is high time that Pelosi and the other leaders in the Democratic Party have to face protests for life- the lives that too many have been cut short for a war that is without purpose- not only at their jobs but 24/7 now.  Remember what kind of reaction that Speaker Pelosi had in 2007?  WSWS journalist Patrick Martin writes:

“Look,” she said, “I had, for five months, people sitting outside my home, going into my garden in San Francisco, angering neighbors, hanging their clothes from trees, building all kinds of things—Buddhas? I don’t know what they were—couches, sofas, chairs, permanent living facilities on my front sidewalk.”

Pelosi’s remark—imagine that riffraff “sleeping on my sidewalk”—is reveals the enormous social distance between the masses of working people, housewives, students who oppose the war, and the privileged ruling elite. And her disparaging reference to the First Amendment demonstrates the hostility of a big business politician towards the democratic rights of the working class

It is time for those Democratically elected leaders know that their jobs are not for life but will face challenges because they are no longer a solution to the problem but enabling the problem.  They had a mandate and have failed. 

It is time for the working men and women to halt the machinery of war:

(h/t to my friend Michael for forwarding this)

In a major step for the U.S. labor movement, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) has announced that it will shut down West Coast ports on May 1, to demand an immediate end to the war and occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan and the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Middle East. This is the first time in decades that an American union has decided to undertake industrial action against a U.S. war. The action announced by the powerful West Coast dock workers union, to stop work to stop the war, should be taken up by unions and labor organizations throughout the United States and internationally. And the purpose of such actions should be not to beg the bourgeois politicians whose hands are covered with blood, having voted for every war budget for six and a half years, but a show of strength of the working people who make this country run, and who can shut it down!

In a major step for the U.S. labor movement, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) has announced that it will shut down West Coast ports on May 1, to demand an immediate end to the war and occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan and the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Middle East. In a February 22 letter to AFL-CIO president John Sweeney, ILWU International president Robert McEllrath reported that at a recent coast-wide union meeting, “One of the resolutions adopted by caucus delegates called on longshore workers to stop work during the day shift on May 1, 2008 to express their opposition to the war in Iraq.”

This is the first time in decades that an American union has decided to undertake industrial action against a U.S. war. It is doubly important that this mobilization of labor’s power is to take place on May Day, the international workers day, which is not honored in the U.S. Moreover, the resolution voted by the ILWU delegates opposes not only the hugely unpopular war in Iraq, but also the war and occupation of Afghanistan (which Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and Republican John McCain all want to expand). The motion to shut down the ports also demands the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the entire region, including the oil sheikdoms of the strategically important Persian/Arab Gulf......

Well what do you think?  The art of the political attack ad is nothing new since the beginning of politics.  I would guess that archeologists will find political attack ads on the pottery and walls of buildings in the ancient ruins of Mesopotamian civilizations which predate ancient Greek civilization by a millienium or so.

John Lundberg, HuffingtonPost.com, writes:

...wondering how politicians went after one another before television. It turns out the Ancient Greeks--inventors of Democracy--may also have invented the first smear tactic: the attack poem...

A well-timed poetic assault in front of the right audience could do some serious damage to one's rival. Archilochus, a soldier and renowned poet in the 7th Century BC, had such a gift for these attacks that it's said he drove a rival--and his entire family--to hang themselves. His verse was nasty enough to get him banned from Sparta. Just how how nasty could Archilochus get? Here's a poem he directed at a rival (all translations are from Brooks Haxton's book Dances for Flute and Thunder from Viking Press):

Swept overboard, unconscious in the breakers,

strangled with seaweed, may you wake up in a gelid

surf, your teeth, already cracked into the shingle,

now set rattling by the wind, while facedown,

helpless as a poisoned cur, on all fours you puke

brine reeking of dead fish. May those you meet,

barbarians as ugly as their souls are hateful,

treat you to the moldy wooden bread of slaves.

And may you, with your split teeth sunk in that,

smile, then, the way you did when speaking as my friend.

So the art of the attack ad has come down through the ages in one form or another.  Alex Balk has a number of negative attack advertisments from American political history. There is a number of scholars who have examined attack ads and have drawn some conclusions, including that attack ads and negative campaigning in general does not suppress voter turnout.  David Mark, Reason magazine, writes:

This conventional wisdom is dead wrong, argues the Vanderbilt political scientist John Geer, author of the 2006 book In Defense of Negativity: Attack Ads in Presidential Politics. "Journalists and academics think of negative campaigning as personal attacks," says Geer. "I don't particularly worry about it. It's going to take something a little more consequential to hurt this country than some rough 30-second spots."

Geer's research demonstrates that negative ads tend to be more substantive than positive spots, because to be credible they must be better documented and specific. His analysis of television campaign advertising from 1960 through 2004 found that nearly three-quarters of the claims in negative spots involved issues, not attacks on candidates' characters or values. "You can't just attack President Bush for being weak on the economy," Geer says. "You need to be more specific when you attack. You have to say why. For the attacks to work, they have to be based on fact."

Mother Jones magazine reporters Leslie Savan and Dave Gilson write:

And that means the classic TV attack ad, supplemented and invigorated by viral video, is not going away anytime soon. Television is "perfect for political advertising," says Advertising Age columnist and On the Media cohost Bob Garfield—in part because it allows candidates to target specific regions and demographics, and in part because it delivers a (somewhat) captive audience.

If you are interested in political campaigning then check this website out: Campaign Ad Watch. If you know of an attack ad, campaign ad, or just something interesting let them know here.

What is wrong with the funding for important public policy think tanks on the  progressive/liberal side? 

Rockridge is most associated with its co-founder and nationally known promoter of "framing," George Lakoff. But we came to know that it had a wonderful, committed, intelligent staff that tirelessly worked on helping to gain the high ground from right-wing think tanks by creating strategies for asserting progressive values in a manner that was cogent and persuasive.

Unfortunately, we learned on April 21 that Rockridge must cease its work due to lack of sufficient funding. It is a dilemma faced by many innovative efforts to counter the right-wing rhetoric and think tanks. There has been some growth in investment in long-term progressive infrastructure -- beyond the immediacy of the political races themselves -- but not nearly enough.

I can only see that money is what matters. 

"Today's continuing success of the Hoover Institution is in large part attributable to the huge contribution of the Volker Fund, an endowment of tens of millions of dollars that support the domestic research programs of the Institution," said Raisian. "As chairman of the Volker Foundation, Morris Cox was key in arranging for a gift of $7 million which has grown tenfold today."

And this:

The market value of Hoover’s endowment as of August 31, 2004, was $276 million, with an additional $15 million of current reserves held in endowment.

Look at the expenditures and revenue for the American Enterprise Institute, which does not include it's internal endowment:

AEI enjoyed another year of very solid financial performance in 2006, with revenues of $28.4 million and $23.6 million in expenditures.

Now look at the Heritage Foundation Annual Report for 2007:

Assets:

196,846,298

Operation Expenses:

48,783,325

Operation Revenue:

48,783,325

Operating Surplus:

429,078 

What am I missing...an inspirational think tank co-founded by George Lakoff yet it goes under because progressive/liberal deep pocket funders cannot see beyond the next election cycle?  Is that it?

There has been much discussion on the part of some people on the left on developing a "pipeline" that is the equivalent to what the right has.  I.e., recent graduates from higher education are hired by institutions like the Hoover Institute, American Enterprise Institute, etc. and then will be able to write and publish at their endowed chairs because the right's deep pocket funders are able to understand that in order to develop the intellectual part of a social movement it is necessary to spend money over long time frames.

This is the biggest weakness that developing a left wing counter part has been so far unsuccessful to do because there is no consistent stream of money to fund insitutions beyond the election cycle.

Will it be up to small donors to fulfill the gap and have the persistence of vision to make it work?

How would you make the financials work that is people powered rather than have a few "fat cats" pulling the strings? 

Check it out!

(h/t to Beth Arnold at Huffingtonpost.com) 

Rush Limbaugh deserves to heard as he stands on his soapbox on a street corner and not on the public airwaves.  He reminds me of that guy who is always holding that sign "Clinton raped Junita Brodderick" on Denver street corners. 

Isn't his calling for riots at the Democratic National Convention a justification for him to be banned from the public airwaves?  Why not call Mayor Hickenlooper, 720-865-9016, and ask him if he believes that is what public figures should be doing in a nation at war? 

I cannot believe that radio stations buy his show through Premier Radio Networks. 

There needs to be concerted action in Denver to get "Rush off the Air and On the Street Corner" where he belongs.

NEWSRADIO 850 KOA
MAILING ADDRESS:
850 KOA Radio
4695 S. Monaco St
Denver, CO 80237

Main Office
(303) 713-8000

The sales people will love to hear from us.  Let them know that you will no longer buy products that sponsor such radio personalities.

Marketing Opportunities
To advertise on KOA Radio contact:

On Air Sales Manager
RosemaryBennett@clearchannel.com
(303) 713-8511
Sport Sales Director
BarryRemington@clearchannel.com
(303) 713-8587
Online
InternetSalesDenver@ClearChannel.com

From a globalized society comes this, from CBS News:

Food Shortages herald "New Era of Hunger"

As More Countries Suffer Riots Over Rising Prices And Shortages Of Staples, Aid Groups Call For Relief

There have been riots in Bangladesh, Egypt, Burkina Faso, Mauritania, Mozambique and Senegal. Rising prices have hit poor countries like Peru (and even developed countries like Italy and the United States).

A confluence of problems are driving the problem. They include soaring petroleum prices, which increase the cost of fertilizers, transport and food processing; rising demand for meat and dairy in China and India, resulting in increased costs for grain, used for cattle feed; and the ever-rising demand for raw materials to make biofuels.

As of December, 37 countries faced food crises, and 20 had imposed some sort of food-price controls. The U.N.'s World Food Program says it's facing a $500 million shortfall in funding this year to feed 89 million needy people.

It can only happen in other countries because America is the bread basket of the world! From the New York Sun:

Major retailers in New York, in areas of New England, and on the West Coast are limiting purchases of flour, rice, and cooking oil as demand outstrips supply. There are also anecdotal reports that some consumers are hoarding grain stocks.

At a Costco Warehouse in Mountain View, Calif., yesterday, shoppers grew frustrated and occasionally uttered expletives as they searched in vain for the large sacks of rice they usually buy...

“At our neighborhood store, it’s very expensive, more than $30” for a 25-pound bag, a housewife from Mountain View, Theresa Esquerra, said. “I’m not going to pay $30. Maybe we’ll just eat bread.”

But wait maybe there won't be any wheat to process. From New Scientist writer Deborah Mackenzie reports:

An infection is coming, and almost no one has heard about it. This infection isn't going to give you flu, or TB. In fact, it isn't interested in you at all. It is after the wheat plants that feed more people than any other single food source on the planet. And because of cutbacks in international research, we aren't prepared. The famines that were banished by the advent of disease-resistant crops in the Green Revolution of the 1960s could return, Borlaug told New Scientist...

The strain has spread slowly across east Africa, but in January this year spores blew across to Yemen, and north into Sudan (see Map). Scientists who have tracked similar airborne spores in this part of the world say it will now blow into Egypt, Turkey and the Middle East, and on to India, lands where a billion people depend on wheat.

Alarmist, you betcha!  (However I read Harry Harrison's "Make Room, Make Room" and have seen the dystopian visions of "The Road Warrior" and "Blade Runner".)  But it's better aware than just having a complacent, even head in the sand, approach to problems, right?  

What happens when one market goes bust?  In a globalized market the effects will have an international impact that will force governments to intravene, but what happens if governments don't because of their economic belief in "free" market(s)?

We have seen that Mr. Bush and his cohort has a faux belief in free market (i.e., Friedman economic theory) by the action of Fed. Chairman Bernanke's federal loan guarantee to JPMorgan's buyout of Bear Stearns. 

But what would happen if a major economic power would allow that to happen to let the market work by itself without any "safety" net?

From the Independent's reporter Clifford Coonan writes:

It took just two years for China's blue-chip share index, the Shanghai Composite share index to register a 500 per cent gain, rising from 1,000 to 6,000 points but it has taken only around five months for it to tumble from 6,000 to below 3,000.

Will this lead to great internal unrest as China's rulers have to wrest with Tibet and a faltering global economy?  What will happen to the 150,000,000 million new investors in their stock markets in Shanghai and Shenzhen?  Those small investors will be hurt the most by the loss of over 1,000,000,000,000 dollars in valuation of corporations because they hold the view that "muscular government intervention to keep everything in the garden rosy ahead of China's big party to mark its emergence as a global economic and political power".  This has not been the case.

Do you think that the U.S. government would stand by if the Dow lost half it's value?

----------------------------------

There has been a remarkable lack of commentary on Hillary Clinton's willingness to spread the nuclear umbrella to countries in the Middle East.  Why is that?

Why would she say that if Isreal is attacked by nuclear weapons from Iran that we would respond with "massive retaliation"?  Why would she say that other Middle East countries would enjoy the umbrella of our nuclear arsenal too?  What countries?  Surely she would not have in mind the Kingdom of Saudia Arabia?

DailyKos.com writer Troutfishing writes:

George E. Lowe, who wrote the 1964 book "The Age of Deterrence" ( Little, Brown) and has won awards for his writing on nuclear deterrence as well, about WHY "massive [nuclear] retaliation" is such a loaded term and WHY the "Meet The Press" folks may have been taken aback by Clinton's "nuclear umbrella" idea...

"Who the HELL is she talking to ? Whose IDEAS are these", Lowe asked me, rhetorically, "Clark didn't seem to know anything about this, he was blindsided. So where did these crazy, dangerous ideas come from ? Look, I've been in this business for fifty years, I know nuclear deterrence. She had to have been talking to somebody like Doug Coe or his elite inner circle."

It was conjecture, and George Lowe would be the first to admit that, but he would also stick to his call pegging Clinton's "nuclear umbrella" as a fast track to global nuclear war. Nuclear weapons can't be used as "umbrellas". That's nuts, an idea one would have expected from SAC head General  Curtis LeMay, parodied in Dr.Strangelove. Today, one would expect it from a neocon.. if she talks like a NeoCon, if she cavorts with NeoCon, if she makes the same sort of mistakes  "NeoCon".

Remember that Iran, per the National Intelligence Estimate, has put a stop to it's nuclear weapons program(s) in 2003, but Hillary is still espousing the dangerous lie that Mr. Bush and the Neo-Cons like Cheney and Perle still hold a belief in- no matter what Iranian leaders and our own intelligence agencies say- Iran is developing nuclear weapons.  Hillary seems to have the same false belief and is commited to using any means to prevent that from happening.

What will happen if Hillary becomes president?   

John Kerry sent out this email via Save the Internet Blog for commentary on Net Neutrality:

By Sen. John Kerry

This may be the only place I don’t feel the need to play up the importance of tomorrow’s Commerce Committee hearing on Net Neutrality.

When I’ve talked to other people – and when I post on other blogs – about this hearing, I always try to grab people’s attention and tell them that, even with the primary tomorrow, we need to keep our eyes on the ball when it comes to Net Neutrality and the future of the Internet...

Because – bottom line – our economic and political future is tied up in a free and open Internet, available to all Americans. That involves making sure the content of the Internet flows freely, and it involves expanding broadband to the urban and rural areas that are underserved with our current infrastructure...

So, I ask again: what would you like to see discussed in this hearing? And I’ll check back after the hearing to get your impressions on what transpired.

Thanks, John Kerry

If you have a stake in this then let him know (you have to register to leave a comment) now.