Tuesday, April 24, 2007
McGovern Chews Out Cheney
Former Senator and 1972 Democratic Presidential nominee George McGovern lets loose of one the least credible political figures in America today; Vice President Dick Cheney. In the midst of defending the total disaster that is the Bush Administration and their Iraq policy, Cheney had the tenacity to try to fling mud at McGovern while slandering Congressional Democrats for their Iraq policy. The former Senator isn't taking it sitting down.
"(Cheney) also said that the McGovern way is to surrender in Iraq and leave the U.S. exposed to new dangers. The truth is that I oppose the Iraq war, just as I opposed the Vietnam War, because these two conflicts have weakened the U.S. and diminished our standing in the world and our national security.
In the war of my youth, World War II, I volunteered for military service at the age of 19 and flew 35 combat missions, winning the Distinguished Flying Cross as the pilot of a B-24 bomber. By contrast, in the war of his youth, the Vietnam War, Cheney got five deferments and has never seen a day of combat — a record matched by President Bush...
We, of course, already know that when Cheney endorses a war, he exempts himself from participation. On second thought, maybe it's wise to keep Cheney off the battlefield — he might end up shooting his comrades rather than the enemy."
I also hope DLC hacks like Peter Beinart, Will Marshall and others, whose slanders and deprecation of McGovern and his campaign led most of them to support this disastrous conflict get a good read too.
Labels: Dick Cheney, George McGovern
Friday, April 20, 2007
10,000 Celebrates Iraqi Communist Party's Birthday
Another scene from the crowd, with a banner reading, “We support a comprehensive national campaign to defeat terror and terrorists.” Photo courtesy Iraqi Communist Party. Nearly 10,000 people attended recent celebrations of the 73rd anniversary of the Iraqi Communist Party in Baghdad. Cold war hang-ups aside (the ICP is more Enrico Berlinguer than Che Guevara anyways as one can see from the violent denunciations of it by the ultra-left), the ICP is the leading political force in Iraq committed to a democratic, social, and secular Iraq. It is a leading force in the struggle to rebuild a strong and independent civil society -- it plays a leading role in many of the trade-unions and women's groups -- that US progressives should take a look at. Historically one of the most important political forces in 20th century Iraq that suffered tremendously under Saadam Hussein, the fact that the ICP can pull out 10,000 in the middle to Baghdad to a political rally shows it continuing importance. It is also inspirational to see Iraqis standing up against ethnic sectarianism, religious fundamentalism and murderous militias. As this account of the events shows, The ICP is one of the leading political force in the building of a democratic opposition to the forces of violence and authoritarianism.
"The response to the celebrations shows the “gradual rise of the democratic forces as a distinct political pole in the Iraqi political spectrum,” Ali said. Before the U.S. invasion, he said, Iraqi politics had three main trends, which he identified as democratic — left and liberal, Islamist, and nationalist Arab and Kurdish. Under Saddam Hussein, the Baathists dominated the nationalist camp, liquidating other pan-Arab nationalist groups. Both the democratic and nationalist trends were weakened by the U.S. occupation’s fanning of sectarian division. “Once the American presence is out or weakens, the old political map will come into play — these big political groups will gradually come back,” he said. “This is the real Iraqi political scene. All the nonsense of ‘Shia vs. Sunni’ doesn’t hold much ground.”
On April 9, the anniversary of the fall of Baghdad to U.S. forces, the Shiite Islamic organization led by cleric Moqtada al-Sadr mobilized tens or hundreds of thousands for a march in the holy city of Najaf protesting the U.S. occupation and calling for Iraqi sovereignty.
The mass march tapped the nearly unanimous Iraqi opposition to foreign occupation. Many commentators saw it as primarily a move by Sadr, whose forces have displayed fractures recently, to show rival Islamic groups that he is still a force to reckon with. Sadr was not present at the march and his whereabouts are unknown.
Sadr’s militias are reviled by many Iraqis for brutal sectarian killings and ethnic cleansing, seen as contributing to destabilizing the country and helping perpetuate the occupation.
The ICP sees national reconciliation and unity as necessary to ending foreign occupation and regaining political and economic sovereignty. Sadr draws support from among the poorest and most marginalized people of the countryside and Baghdad’s Sadr City. In the Iraqi Communists’ view, this underscores the fact that security and sovereignty require immediate economic and social measures to meet the needs of the people including the most downtrodden."
Labels: Iraq, Iraqi Communist Party
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Mon Conseil : Voix Royal
In three days French voters will go to the polls in the first round of voting to pick what will be their first president in over a decade. I doubt there are many French readers of this blog, but for what it's worth, this blogger is pulling for a Segolene Royal victory. Ms. Royal, a former minsiter under Mitterand is the Socialist Party candidate, and is currently running behind Gaullist candidate Nicolas Sarkozy. Sarkozy is the candidate of the right and his election could see a real conservative shift in French politics. Sarkozy is hardly a right-wing ogre like Le Pen and parts of his program as described in today's Washington Post are somewhat appealing and is someway a genuinely progressive break with with certain problematic French traditions.
"He supports affirmative action-style programs to give minorities equal opportunities -- a radical departure from the country's traditional stance that inequality does not exist within its borders...last month he invoked Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech at a Paris rally and urged French minority youths to look to the U.S. civil rights leader as a role model.
That dream of brotherhood and justice he spoke of changed America," Sarkozy told thousands of young supporters packed into a Paris auditorium on March 18. "If the dream could change America, why might it not change France?"
He also opnely denounces knuckle headed anti-americanism, the French "Socialism of fools."
Still a Sarkozy victory could have bad reprecussion for US progressives as Jordan Stancil writes in the Nation:
"Nicolas Sarkozy is not a European Reagan, but some of his plans seem drawn from the Republican playbook. He proposes, for instance, a cut in the estate tax and the abolition of a surcharge on large fortunes. He also proposes other tax cuts, which he promises will put more money in the average person's pocket--paid for in part by not replacing half of all retiring civil service workers. You can almost hear him saying, "It's not the government's money--it's your money!" In addition, the at-will employment system the government tried to begin installing last year (but had to retract in the face of public protest) remains a centerpiece of Sarkozy's program. This is all part of his stated goal of bringing what he describes approvingly as Anglo-Saxon flexibility to France, a project that makes him the darling of the business associations even as his law-and-order image allows him simultaneously to cull votes from the populist far right...
If none of this seems to matter to the fate of progressive politics in the United States, consider this: If a kind of Reaganomics came to dominate Europe, there would no longer be any major Western economy to demonstrate the viability of the social market. An ever-growing list of health, pension and education "reforms"--all tending in the direction of greater inequality--would eviscerate Europe's societal model. The welfare-state Alamo would fall, and American progressives would lose a powerful, living argument that--for all its flaws--still gives the lie to the Bush/Norquist vision of the so-called "ownership society." Something to think about as French voters go to the polls."
Saying that, Royal and the Socialists have run a pretty lame campaign. At the moment when most Democrats are dumping DLC centrism in favor of neo-populism and talk of a "Third Way" has joined crystal Pepsi as just another 90's artifact, Royal openly talkes about her desire to turn the the SP into a Clinton-Blair like formation. She says nothing about growing income gaps or the problem of unfettered free trade except DLC style crap about training French workers to "compete in the global economy." Oh, and she studied closely the Hillary Clinton playbook and likes to talk a lot about family values and violent video games. Her response to Sarkozy's proposal for a Ministry of Immigration (a real if controversal response) was for every French citizen to stick a tricolor in front of their house. Not sure what that's supposed to do about integrating a very alienated and segregated immigrant population in French society. Its seems more like a stupid duck of a vital issue.
The Socialists are kind of like the Democrats were in the 80's. A lame shadow of its former self, torn between a grey technocratic and pro-neoliberal wing and the old dinosaurs still living off the memories of the party's last tenure in office.
Still, Royal is a candidate of the center-left. Despite her Third way centrism she still puts forward a progressive, if tepidly so, platform. To quote Stancil, Royal is calling for:
"proposals to give tax credits to companies that reinvest profits in France and to make companies reimburse the government for tax breaks if they turn around and send abroad the jobs the tax breaks were designed to subsidize. Royal's program also calls for raising the minimum wage and increasing pension benefits for the lowest-income retirees."
So my advice to French readers is this: Hold your nose like I did in 2004 and pull the lever for Ms. Royal. Yeah, you have 101 Trotskyist candidates and anti-globalization activist Jose Bove to choose from if you want to be purist. But a repeat of the 2002 election where National Front candidate Jean Marie Le Pen beat out the Socialist candidate Lionel Jospin to make it to the second round of voting would be disastrous. Le Pen is already polling between 12 and 15 percent; better than he was in 02. The only left candidate who has a chance of making it to the second round is Royal.
Labels: French elections
Friday, April 13, 2007
Farm Labor Organizing Committee Organizer Murdered
From Labor Notes Magazine:
FLOC ORGANIZER MURDERED
Santiago Rafael Cruz, an organizer for the Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC) based in Toledo, Ohio, was found murdered in the union's office in Monterrey, Mexico on the morning of April 9. He had been bound hand and foot and beaten to death. Circumstances suggest labor contractors may have had him killed.
Cruz, 29, had worked for FLOC in the United States for four years
organizing immigrant agricultural workers. For less than a month
working for the FLOC in the Monterrey office that was set up in 2005
to help process H2A visa workers whose employers were under FLOC
contracts.
FLOC has asked the AFL-CIO and Rep. Marcy Kaptur's (D-Ohio) to
request that the U.S. State Department press the Mexican government
to conduct a thorough and speedy investigation to bring the killers to
justice. John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, has called on the
Mexican and U.S. governments to ensure that there is a "thorough and
professional investigation" of the murder.
URGENT ACTION
The Farm Labor Organizing Committee asks that you send a letter to the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights requesting (not demanding)
that they take on the murder of Santiago Rafael Cruz as an official
case. In your letter you might express your awareness that FLOC's
contract was protecting workers and eliminating the extortion of
illegal fees from workers, your outrage at this political murder, and
your request that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights take
on the Cruz murder case.
It is important to send your fax today, Friday, April 13, 2007 to:
Executive Secretary
Dr. Santiago A. Canton
Inter-american Commission on Human Rights
1889 F. St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone 202-458-5062
FAX 202-458-6215
Please also write to the Mexican Ambassador expressing your outrage at
the murder of Santiago Rafael Cruz and demanding a rapid, thorough and
professional investigation of his murder.
Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan
Mexican Embassy
1911 Pennsylvania AV, NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Tel: (202) 728 1600
Labels: Farm Labor Organizing Committee
Thursday, April 12, 2007
The Land of Pleasant Living Keeps it Up
I think if the Center of American Progress is looking to put together a book of model bills for progressive state legislators to use, they should just cut and past all the bills from the last few sessions of the Maryland House of Delegates. Living wage, state wide smoking ban, the Wal-Mart bill and now this:
"The Maryland Senate unanimously approved a bill Friday that would require the state to scrap its $65 million electronic-voting system and switch to new machines that have a paper record.
If the bill wins final approval and is signed by the governor, voters would not use the new optical-scan equipment until the 2010 election. The measure is contingent on state funding, and the new system is projected to cost $18 million to $20 million."
The bill was likely given a boost by the meltdown of voting machines in Montgomery County during the heated primary election on September 12. Maryland has also been blessed with the presence of hard-working outfits like True Vote MD that have been fighting the good fight on this issue for years.
Labels: Maryland, True Vote MD, Voting Rights
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Iraqi Trade Union Leader Murdered by Insurgents
The coalition of ex-Baathists, Shite militias and foreign jihadists that make up the Iraqi insurgency has moved quickly to wipe out any trace of civil society that may oppose their sectarian and totalitarian vision for Iraq; kidnapping and murdering teachers, doctors and labor activists. Since the beginning of the insurgency over two hundred Iraqi trade unionists have been assassinated. The latest victim is Iraqi Trade Union leader Najim Abed Jassem. From the British Trade Union Congress:
"Najim Abed Jasem was kidnapped by militias on 27 March. His body was found on 30 March 2007. His body bears huge signs of torture. He was member of the underground Workers' Trade Union Movement (WDTUM) and fought against the regime of Saddam. He was dismissed from his job because of his trade union activities. He was reinstated after the fall of Saddam. He was one of the key founder of the new democratic IFTU, now the GFIW, and was elected the General Secretary of the Mechanics Workers' Union.'"
What Saddam was unable to do completly-the crushing of the democratic left-the Iraqi insurgents are completing under US watch.
Labels: Iraq, Trade-unions
Maryland Passes First Ever State Living-Wage Act
My good neighbors in Maryland are really going all out in being the first in the nation in passing ground breaking progressive legislation. From the AFL-CIO Blog:
"Maryland today became the first state to require contractors to pay workers a living wage, the fruit of a months-long coalition campaign that included union members, religious leaders and civil rights advocates.
On its last day in session, the Maryland Senate voted, 31–16, to approve the measure, which was passed by the state House last week. Gov. Martin O’Malley (D), who campaigned for the legislation, has promised to sign the bill.
The new law will require service contractors doing business with the state to pay employees $11.30 an hour in urban areas and $8.50 an hour in rural areas. The state’s minimum wage is $6.15 an hour."
Last year, the Free-Line state passed the first real law reining in Wal-Mart; requiring the mega-corporation to boost its spending on employee health care.
Labels: living wage, Maryland
The Forward Goes Hunting for Israel's Critics in Cali
In a retro nod to HUAC a recent article in the Forward trashes California universities as being purportedly being hotbeds of "anti-Israeli" activity. This kind of stuff is par for the course at Frontpage and various other right wing crusaders against anti-Bush thought on college campuses, but I will give credit to the author for labeling the offending activity on the campuses of the Golden State "anti-Israeli"; a much more accurate description of the kind of stuff that goes on at Berkley and SF State than the old "anti-semitism" canard.
But its the opening of the article that really crystallizes how remote from reality and politically destructive the Israel can do no wrong school of thought has become.
I'm generally opposed to those on the campus left who think disrupting or shouting down right-wing speakers is a smart tactic, but I can't really blame Arab students (or anyone with sliver of humanitarian concern) for getting upset at hearing Pipes calling for the will of a whole nation to be "crushed". If an Islamic fundamentalist gave speech at UCLA calling for the will of America to be crushed so that it will leave the Middle East alone, I can imagine there would be some pissed off students yelling and shouting too; I doubt the Forward or Frontpage would be rushing to defend academic freedom then. The fact that the Forward acts like this statement is some minor point of intellectual discourse that would only upset hard core Islamic fundamentalists or anti-Semites is indicative how badly the Forward, at one point the voice of Jewish-American Socialism committed to a secular, democratic and humanist worldview has degenerated into an apologist for the Israeli and US hard-right.
But its the opening of the article that really crystallizes how remote from reality and politically destructive the Israel can do no wrong school of thought has become.
"The lecture topic was “The Threat to Israel’s Existence.” The speaker was Daniel Pipes, a Middle East analyst known for his hawkish pro-Israel views and sharp denunciations of Islamic extremism. The setting was the University of California, Irvine, a campus with a national reputation as a hotbed of anti-Israel rhetoric.
Students wearing Palestinian kaffiyehs clustered in the center of the auditorium.
The stage was set for confrontation.
Sure enough, 15 minutes into Pipes’s speech, just as he had built up to one of his main points — “The Palestinians must have their will crushed so that they will no longer be trying to eliminate Israel, so they will tend to their own affairs and leave Israel alone” — dozens of Muslim students interrupted him with hostile shouts, before promptly marching out of the lecture hall, chanting “anti-Israel, anti-oppression."
I'm generally opposed to those on the campus left who think disrupting or shouting down right-wing speakers is a smart tactic, but I can't really blame Arab students (or anyone with sliver of humanitarian concern) for getting upset at hearing Pipes calling for the will of a whole nation to be "crushed". If an Islamic fundamentalist gave speech at UCLA calling for the will of America to be crushed so that it will leave the Middle East alone, I can imagine there would be some pissed off students yelling and shouting too; I doubt the Forward or Frontpage would be rushing to defend academic freedom then. The fact that the Forward acts like this statement is some minor point of intellectual discourse that would only upset hard core Islamic fundamentalists or anti-Semites is indicative how badly the Forward, at one point the voice of Jewish-American Socialism committed to a secular, democratic and humanist worldview has degenerated into an apologist for the Israeli and US hard-right.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Happy Easter
Happy Easter All (If you celebrate it, if not happy Sunday). Be back next week.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
New Additions
I added David Sirota's excellent article The People Party vs. the Money Party under the Hot Shots section. If you haven't read it yet, check it out. Especially the section on Barack Obama and his somewhat problematic tendency while in the Senate to get sucked in to the Money Party despite his People Party instinct and background.
Labels: The People Party vs. the Money Party
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Tell Congress: Stand Up to President Bush: End the War
Got this nice letter from the Edwards Campaign in my in-box
------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, right now, you and I have the best chance in years to help end the war in Iraq but we must take immediate action. Here's the situation: Both houses of Congress have voted across party lines to bring our troops home with a plan to fully fund their redeployment and safe return. President Bush has vowed to veto this funding because it hampers his ability to wage endless war—he'd rather block funding for the troops than listen to the overwhelming majority of the American people who want the war to end.
Yesterday, Bush called a special press conference and made his strategy crystal clear: veto funding for the troops and then blame Congress for the results. He's betting that Congress will buckle under the pressure and just drop their plan to end the war. We cannot let that happen. So today, I'm launching an emergency petition to Congress, urging them to stand firm on Iraq. We have to show every senator and representative that their constituents will not be fooled by Bush's ploy—Congress must not abandon the plan to end the war.
We're aiming to gather at least 100,000 signatures before the showdown begins after Congress returns to Washington next week. Please add your name today:
President Bush's calculation is simple. He knows the people are against him and his occupation is a failure, but because he controls the bully pulpit he thinks he can control the debate. So he'll continue to use the full might of his legendary spin machine to tell the American people that Congress is de-funding the troops, even as he vetos that very funding with his own pen. As the President of the United States, Bush has a responsibility to the troops, and he has failed this responsibility over and over again.
Congress also has a responsibility: To decide how to spend the people's money—and to say when enough is enough.It's true that Cheney, Rove, and the rest of the president's team are master political calculators—and they do have a head start in shaping the headlines and controlling the spin.But this is not the time for political calculation. This is the time for political courage.If Bush vetoes the funding bill, Congress should send it back to him just as before—with a plan to bring the troops home. And if he vetoes it again, they should pass it again. And they should do this as many times as it takes for Bush to understand that the American people will not be bullied into writing another blank check for his war without end.
For years, Bush has abused the rhetoric of patriotism to frighten his opponents and divide our country—we can't let Bush get away with it anymore. When Congress funds the troops with a plan to bring them home, they are supporting the troops. When Bush vetoes that funding, he is responsible for blocking the money the troops depend on—nobody else.But where will our representatives in Washington find that political courage, in the face of such powerful opposition? They will find it where courage has always been strongest in our nation's most critical moments. They will find it in the voice of the people—they will find it in you.Will you add your name—your voice—to our call for courage? We're aiming to gather a hundred thousand signatures before Congress returns to Washington, and we can't do it without you.
Please sign today. Thank you for standing up,
John Edwards
P.S. - Gathering 100,000 voices in the time we have will require all of us taking that extra step. Will you forward this email to friends and family members who also want to end this war, and ask them to join you by signing this petition?P.P.S. - You can find links to detailed summaries of both the House and Senate funding packages and troop drawdown plan here.
Labels: Campaign 2008, Iraq, John Edwards
Free Market Stalinism
Harold Meyerson has a good column today taking on the old neo-liberal doctrine that free markets equal free minds. Its seems that the Chinese who were converted to free market economics by the west have manage to turn on US investors to the political benefits of Stalinism, converting the American Chamber of Commerce over to the new Beijing based political doctrine of Free-Market Stalinism."Since March of last year, the government has been considering a labor law that promises a smidgen of increase in workers' rights. And since March of last year, the American businesses so mightily invested in China have mightily fought it....As documented by Global Labor Strategies, a U.S.-based nonprofit organization headed by longtime labor activists, the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai and the U.S.-China Business Council embarked on a major campaign to kill these tepid reforms. Last April, one month after the legislation was first floated, the chamber sent a 42-page document to the Chinese government on behalf of its 1,300 members -- including General Electric, Microsoft, Dell, Ford and dozens of other household brand names -- objecting to these minimal increases in worker power. In its public comments on the proposed law, GE declared that it strongly preferred "consultation" with workers to "securing worker representative approval" on a range of its labor practices."
The American Prospect also had a good article in last month's issue on explaining how the Chinese Communist Party managed to transform their economy. into a capitalist powerhouse without having to junk the one-party Stalinist system and how that has been a-ok for multi-national corporations making a profit from the cheap labor that comes from a country where labor has little to no rights on the job.
Labels: China
DC Voting Rights March-April 16th
Where: Gather at Freedom Plaza and March to the Capitol
When: DC Emancipation Day, April 162:30 PM — Gather at Freedom Plaza — VIEW MAP3:00 PM — March down Pennsylvania Avenue, NW4:00 PM — Rally at the Capitol Reflecting Pool — VIEW MAP
What: Voting Rights March —The Largest Demonstration Ever for DC Voting Rights
Who: Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, Chairman Vincent Gray, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Congressman Tom Davis, Secretary Jack Kemp
Why: NOW is the time to make a difference!
Labels: DC Voting Rights
Edwards is Surging in NH
Former Sen. John Edwards is rocketing in New Hampshire according to a WMUR/CNN poll released yesterday.
Right now the big loser is Clinton who was polling a safe first at around 40% back in January. Obama also lost out, dropping to 3rd, though Edwards surge was clearly at the expense of Clinton. Al Gore's 11% percent-not bad considering he is not even running-is also bad news for Clinton. I think we can safely take Gore out of the equation. I'm absolutely convinced that Gore is very happy with his new role of environmental advocate and has no plans to run. This guy always hated electoral politics anyway; he'd rather stayed a journalist. That 11% can be taken as an anti-Hillary vote which would likely be split between Obama and Edwards.
This is big news for Edwards because NH was likely to be where Edwards would do the worst out the four early primary contests. Of course the problem for Edwards is to build on this strong showing. I don't know what kind of ground operation Edwards has in NH, but Clinton's is very strong and as the example of Howard Dean shows, it doesn't matter how well you do in the polls in a small state if you don't have a strong grassroots operation.
The media is focusing on Elizabeth Edwards cancer announcement as the reason for the bounce, which probably has some validity. But I think that Edwards's political message might have something to do with it too. For the last two electoral cycles Democrats have voluntarily chosen candidates that many people voted for while holding their nose. They picked nominees they thought could win, not because they found anything particularly exciting about their ideas or message. It was the politics of siege with the idea that most of the country hated progressive ideas so Democrats needed to find the least "offensive candidate". With the GOP in its worst position since 1974, a lot of Democrats are looking for a candidate who can energize their electorate around a new direction for the country, not play more of the same politics of old. And as a recent study by the Pew Research Center shows, political attitudes of most Americans is turning away from the conservative agenda that dominated Washington for over twenty years. For example, in response to the question of whether the government should have the responsibility of taking care to those who can not take care of themselves, the percentage of Americans answering in the affirmative has gone up 12 points since 1994. Social conservatism is on the decline too, with those who claim to support "old-fashioned views on family and marriage" down 8 points since 1994. The number of Americans who believe that peace is best guaranteed through military strength have declined almost 15 points points since 2002. As I've said before I think Edwards is the only candidate who really gets the opportunity 2008 presents and understands that the mood of the country is for real-not rhetorical-change.
"Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards appears to be surging among likely Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire shortly after the announcement that his wife's cancer had returned in an “incurable, but treatable” form.
A WMUR/CNN poll released this afternoon shows Edwards shooting into second place ahead of Illinois Senator Barack Obama, though within the margin of error.
The poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire, showed support for New York Senator Hillary Clinton dropping eight percentage points from two months ago, to 27 percent. Edwards is at 21 percent and Obama at 20 percent. Former Vice President Al Gore-doing better than most announced candidates-received 11 percent. All other Democrats running were in the single digits."
Right now the big loser is Clinton who was polling a safe first at around 40% back in January. Obama also lost out, dropping to 3rd, though Edwards surge was clearly at the expense of Clinton. Al Gore's 11% percent-not bad considering he is not even running-is also bad news for Clinton. I think we can safely take Gore out of the equation. I'm absolutely convinced that Gore is very happy with his new role of environmental advocate and has no plans to run. This guy always hated electoral politics anyway; he'd rather stayed a journalist. That 11% can be taken as an anti-Hillary vote which would likely be split between Obama and Edwards.
This is big news for Edwards because NH was likely to be where Edwards would do the worst out the four early primary contests. Of course the problem for Edwards is to build on this strong showing. I don't know what kind of ground operation Edwards has in NH, but Clinton's is very strong and as the example of Howard Dean shows, it doesn't matter how well you do in the polls in a small state if you don't have a strong grassroots operation.
The media is focusing on Elizabeth Edwards cancer announcement as the reason for the bounce, which probably has some validity. But I think that Edwards's political message might have something to do with it too. For the last two electoral cycles Democrats have voluntarily chosen candidates that many people voted for while holding their nose. They picked nominees they thought could win, not because they found anything particularly exciting about their ideas or message. It was the politics of siege with the idea that most of the country hated progressive ideas so Democrats needed to find the least "offensive candidate". With the GOP in its worst position since 1974, a lot of Democrats are looking for a candidate who can energize their electorate around a new direction for the country, not play more of the same politics of old. And as a recent study by the Pew Research Center shows, political attitudes of most Americans is turning away from the conservative agenda that dominated Washington for over twenty years. For example, in response to the question of whether the government should have the responsibility of taking care to those who can not take care of themselves, the percentage of Americans answering in the affirmative has gone up 12 points since 1994. Social conservatism is on the decline too, with those who claim to support "old-fashioned views on family and marriage" down 8 points since 1994. The number of Americans who believe that peace is best guaranteed through military strength have declined almost 15 points points since 2002. As I've said before I think Edwards is the only candidate who really gets the opportunity 2008 presents and understands that the mood of the country is for real-not rhetorical-change.
Labels: Campaign 2008, John Edwards
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Progressive Parents Stand Up For Our Kid's Precious Bodily Fluids
Liza Featherstone at Babble has an excellent piece about the growing refusal by well-meaning, seemingly sane, progressive parents to get their child vaccinated for communicable diseases.
All those diseases were ancient history when I was growing up thanks to vaccinations, while my grandparents grew up with the very real fear that their children might die or spend the rest of there life in a wheelcare thanks to a bad case of mumps or polio. Why anyone would want to risk going back to days who is not a religious fanatic is beyond me, but as Featherstone writes its the very success of vaccination programs which might be the root of the movement against it.
What's most distributing about Featherstone's article is that she is talking about "blue-state" Americans who would likely turn their noses at Kansas creationists who are waging their own war on science. And as much as "intelligent design" may be repugnant to any person concerned about progress and modernity, it won't cause the reemergence of preventable killer diseases among children.
Just like the early 60's conservative revival was ringed by bizarre conspiracy theories about fluoridation in the water, the secret doings at the UN, and the possibility that Eisenhower was really a communist, the progressive movement in the early 21st century has spawned the same kind of disturbing fringe-the kind of stuff you might hear on Pacifica-with its 9/11 conspiracies, how Bush stole the election from Kerry and now an anti-vaccination furor. There are progressive people I know who strike me as intelligent enough who believe all three. The first two are just odd and a waste of time but its the last that could cause politicians from backing down in carrying out one of the more important functions of our government; protecting and promoting public health. Already Governor Tim Kaine (D-Va) has had to back off from his plan to vaccinate all teenage girls in the Virginia schools against HPV.
Personal choices in your parenting is fine, but not if it causes the emergence of deadly communicable diseases. At one point the left was associated with rational, science-based discourse not crazed conspiracy thinking or pseudo-libertarian identity politics. We need to reclaim the former.
"Among well-educated, comfortably off parents, the ranks of vaccine-resistors are increasing. (Of course, plenty of parents fail to vaccinate their kids not by choice, but because they're poor and lack access to decent healthcare.) Some states with a large number of skeptical, alternative-minded people —Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington, New York — have seen, in the past six years, a declining percentage of children vaccinated against polio, diptheria, measles, mumps and rubella."
All those diseases were ancient history when I was growing up thanks to vaccinations, while my grandparents grew up with the very real fear that their children might die or spend the rest of there life in a wheelcare thanks to a bad case of mumps or polio. Why anyone would want to risk going back to days who is not a religious fanatic is beyond me, but as Featherstone writes its the very success of vaccination programs which might be the root of the movement against it.
"Why now? Partly because, although there have been vaccine skeptics for as long as there have been vaccines, they tend to be most vocal when major childhood diseases are in retreat (not many Africans are worrying about autism right now). Side effects from vaccines are not unknown, of course, and since few of us know anyone who has had a vaccine-preventable disease, more and more parents question the risk. Diseases like polio, says Dr. Bernstein, are "out of sight, out of mind, so many parents may not feel the need to have their children vaccinated." In its current form, vaccine resistance bears the familiar markers of Generation X parenthood."The same problem is found around the outcry over the moves by many local and state governments to institute a mandatory HPV vaccine in schools. According to the Center for Disease Control 1 in 4 women have this STD which one of the leading causes of cervical cancer among women. A massive HPV vaccination plan among children could radically decrease incidents of cervical cancer in the future. But cervical cancer due to HPV won't strike until adulthood and lacks the graphic symptoms of polio or measles which used to kill and cripple thousands of children before the widespread use of vaccinations. So instead parents are focusing on the sexual aspect of the disease("my 13 year old doesn't have sex") and an understandable distrust of big drug companies to fight what by any scientific standard is a big step forward in improving the collective health of America.
What's most distributing about Featherstone's article is that she is talking about "blue-state" Americans who would likely turn their noses at Kansas creationists who are waging their own war on science. And as much as "intelligent design" may be repugnant to any person concerned about progress and modernity, it won't cause the reemergence of preventable killer diseases among children.
Just like the early 60's conservative revival was ringed by bizarre conspiracy theories about fluoridation in the water, the secret doings at the UN, and the possibility that Eisenhower was really a communist, the progressive movement in the early 21st century has spawned the same kind of disturbing fringe-the kind of stuff you might hear on Pacifica-with its 9/11 conspiracies, how Bush stole the election from Kerry and now an anti-vaccination furor. There are progressive people I know who strike me as intelligent enough who believe all three. The first two are just odd and a waste of time but its the last that could cause politicians from backing down in carrying out one of the more important functions of our government; protecting and promoting public health. Already Governor Tim Kaine (D-Va) has had to back off from his plan to vaccinate all teenage girls in the Virginia schools against HPV.
Personal choices in your parenting is fine, but not if it causes the emergence of deadly communicable diseases. At one point the left was associated with rational, science-based discourse not crazed conspiracy thinking or pseudo-libertarian identity politics. We need to reclaim the former.
Labels: HPV, vaccinations
Monday, April 02, 2007
MoveOn.Org Defends Itself
Don Harzen at Alternet has an interesting interview with MoveOn. Org co-founders Wes Boyd and Joan Blades. MoveOn.Org has come into more public focus recently for its lobbying effort helping to get the recent Iraq War bill-which calls for a withdrawal date of US troops by 2008- passed through Congress. While for many committed to ending the Iraq war this was an important step, for others it was a sell-out and many of those critics directed their fire right at MoveOn for providing public support to Speaker Peolsi. For example as anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan recently wrote:
Here's another MoveOn.org critic from the anti-war movement.
Its true that MoveOn.org was one of the few organizations that has been associated with the anti-war movement that not only fully backed Peolsi's bill but actively lobbied Democratic House members to get it passed. MoveOn.org worked very hard for a compromised bill that many other anti-war groups refused to have anything to with. Blades give an excellent justification for her strategy however:
While not perfect, MoveOn.org is an excellent example of a grassroots movement that is trying seriously to deal with an inside/out strategy that is trying to balance the idealism and activism of its members with the realities of building a political coalition among disparate political forces-including those in power-in order to make changes in the power. Maneuvering without a political goal or ideal (or an accountable grassroots) will lead to useless compromises, but idealism and program without any ability to show political flexibility or go beyond mere protest will lead to impotence. Its refreshing to hear two leading progressives openly express both the challenges and opportunities they face in trying to carry out such a strategy. For a long time the left-probably since the 70's- has been forced to accept the option of lesser-evilism and political capitulation or sticking with isolated protest politics. For the first time in a long time we are seeing the emergence of progressive coalition politics in this country. Read the interview and see how.
"One group closely allied to the Democratic leadership, MoveOn, has used antiwar sentiment to triple both its membership and fundraising, but has been AWOL from antiwar activity; its members are prohibited from demonstrations, and only vigils for the war dead are posted as events on their website. A month ago I wrote that MoveOn began efforts to support "slow bleed" while antiwar forces actively opposed it"
Here's another MoveOn.org critic from the anti-war movement.
Its true that MoveOn.org was one of the few organizations that has been associated with the anti-war movement that not only fully backed Peolsi's bill but actively lobbied Democratic House members to get it passed. MoveOn.org worked very hard for a compromised bill that many other anti-war groups refused to have anything to with. Blades give an excellent justification for her strategy however:
"In a movement working to move forward, everyone plays a different role. Some organizations and leaders will demand nothing less than an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of U.S. troops. And that's a crucial part of the movement. It keeps us grounded in the real goal of all this -- bringing an end to the horror in Iraq. Not only will we always respect and support our friends who do that, it's a crucial source of pressure.
Others will help mobilize to show a unified front defying the President. We need toconnect a movement stretching from Cindy Sheehan to Nancy Pelosi. This is a tough new challenge. And given that most of the folks on the MoveOn list basically want to support the Democratic majority in moving forward ... When Democrats do move forward, this connection role partly falls to us.
Most MoveOn members, like ourselves, will embrace both these roles, at different times. Push like mad for the occupation to end, and then pivot to support broad political unity, when it's justified."
While not perfect, MoveOn.org is an excellent example of a grassroots movement that is trying seriously to deal with an inside/out strategy that is trying to balance the idealism and activism of its members with the realities of building a political coalition among disparate political forces-including those in power-in order to make changes in the power. Maneuvering without a political goal or ideal (or an accountable grassroots) will lead to useless compromises, but idealism and program without any ability to show political flexibility or go beyond mere protest will lead to impotence. Its refreshing to hear two leading progressives openly express both the challenges and opportunities they face in trying to carry out such a strategy. For a long time the left-probably since the 70's- has been forced to accept the option of lesser-evilism and political capitulation or sticking with isolated protest politics. For the first time in a long time we are seeing the emergence of progressive coalition politics in this country. Read the interview and see how.
Labels: anti-war movement, moveon.org
More and More Troops Demand Congress End the Iraq War
Anti-War.com has a good piece talking about the growing number of active duty servicemen and women who are signing a confidential on-line Appeal of Redress calling on Congress to end the Iraq war.
"Last week, a convoy of approximately 20 veterans riding in converted school buses left Fayetteville, North Carolina. They were sponsored by Veterans for Peace, armed with literature and headed for New Orleans, where they are spending this week rebuilding houses in the Ninth Ward. On the way, the group stopped at military bases throughout the South. Their goal? They were passing out copies of the Appeal for Redress, GI rights information, and copies of the videos "Ground Truth" and "Sir! No Sir!"
Veterans for Peace members say they're not trying to pressure GIs to resist war. They want to educate soldiers about their rights. They know from experience that the military frowns on dissent and doesn't go out of its way to educate soldiers regarding constitutionally protected ways to express their opinions on issues like war and peace. Despite popular opinion to the contrary, soldiers do indeed have rights
to express political dissent."
A big factor in ending the Vietnam War was not so much the anti-war movement on the college campuses but the anti-war movement among the GI's in the field. When enough active servicemen and women in Iraq start saying enough of this, that is when Bush signs on to a withdrawal date too.
Labels: anti-war movement
