The topic below was originally posted on the Intrepid Liberal Journal, yesterday evening.“You’re too tough on Democrats and Barack Obama. Since the election you’ve fired more rhetorical bullets at Democrats than Republicans.”This was in response to my recent critiques of the Obama administration's handling of the banking crisis as well as my March 8th post, entitled “Evan Bayh Is A Corporatist Class Warrior.” To my friend and others like him I say this: just because I worked hard to elect Democrats as well as our current president doesn’t make me an unquestioning Borg drone.
2) Enable the Democrats to obtain power in exchange for influence.
3) Leverage our influence within the party to pursue policies that facilitate broad prosperity, peace and social justice.
Put simply it’s a business relationship. Democrats are using people like me and we’re using the party. That said, I fully acknowledge the mess President Obama and Democrats have inherited and appreciate how four decades of predatory conservatism can’t be undone in two months.
Read More +/-
I attended a local event at the Women's Intercultural Center for Women's History Month/International Women's Day last week that paired a special movie screening with a "sliding scale bake sale." Cupcakes and drinks cost a dollar each. But women got a special deal: those without children paid $.90, married moms paid $.73, and single moms paid $.60 for those same $1.00 items.
A sign explained what was happening:
--------------------
"WHY THE DIFFERENT PRICES?
We don't mean to discriminate. But this is a
SLIDING SCALE BAKE SALE
The prices reflect the REAL WAGE GAP
between men, women, and women with children.
Even today, for each dollar that a man earns, a woman can expect to earn $.90, a married mom can expect to earn $.73, and a single mom can expect to earn $.60.
If this seems unfair at a bake sale, imagine how it feels in the real world, WHERE RENT AND FOOD ARE NOT SOLD ON A SLIDING SCALE.
Info source: www.momsrising.org"
--------------------
Bill in Texas would allow creationists to grant Masters of Science degreesHere's what "M.Sc." means:
If a private college doesn't receive funds from any governmental organization, should they have to be held to any standards or requirements when they award degrees? No, one Texan lawmaker is insisting.
Texas State Representative Leo Berman has proposed House Bill 2800, which would exempt any private non-profit institution that requires students to complete “substantive course work” from having to acquire a certificate of authority from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board(THECB). “If you don’t take any federal funds, if you don’t take any state funds, you can do a lot more than some business that does take state funding or federal funding,” Berman says. “Why should you be regulated if you don’t take any state or federal funding?”
Because creationism isn't science, critics argue.
Berman admits that his 'inspiration' for the bill was the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School, a Young Earth Creationism institution that has been trying to achieve certification in Texas for two years. Young Earth Creationism, much more popular than the recent Intelligent Design Creationism, is essentially Biblical literalism – Earth is 10,000 years old, Noah's Flood occurred, Adam and Eve were real people. ICRGS insists that they teach more than just “Biblical Creationism," which is based only on the word of the Bible; they also have incorporated tenets of “Scientific Creationism” into their bylaws. Most of these relate to origins of Earth and the evolution of species. Originally the creationist research branch of Christian Heritage College in San Diego, the ICRGS was forced to split from that college when California regulators threatened to take away its certification. Now, the ICRGS operates mostly online, and its Masters of Science Degree is recognized by California and federal law. According to its website, however, Texas residents cannot receive a degree.
Degree-granting colleges and universities in Texas currently must be issued a certificate of authority by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. The certificate allows the holder to grant a degree that a graduate would need to apply for a teaching position in a Texas public school. If House Bill 2800 was made into law, only state-funded colleges and universities would have to report to THECB; everyone else would be free to design their curriculums without any regulation.
A Master of Science (Latin: Magister Scientiæ; abbreviated MSc, M.Sc., M.S. or S.M.) is a postgraduate academic master's degree awarded by universities in a large number of countries. The degree is typically studied for in the sciences.It bears repeating: creationism is not science.
The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal. Greider’s latest book, Come Home, America: The Rise and Fall (and Redeeming Promise) of Our Country, just published by Rodale, is a manifesto of hope and warning. In Chapter One, Greider writes:
“Think of America at this point as a muscular teenager, full of talent, adolescent energy, and youth’s over-reaching impulses. This is a critical stage in human development and for our nation it could go either way. Some nations that acted like willful children when they were young formed balanced societies when they became adults. Other nations have never really grown up.Greider’s book chronicles why America is in dire straits and proposes numerous solutions to facilitate a better economic foundation for America's struggling middle class. His recommendations include consolidating many of the Federal Reserve’s functions within the executive branch to ensure public accountability for monetary policy, replacing private pension plans such as 401ks with government pension plans instead and capping U.S. trade deficits through a general emergency tariff authorized under the charter of the World Trade Organization.
The question, I think is whether-we-the people who proudly call ourselves Americans – can mature as a society. The country can develop a deeper sense of what matters most in life and what doesn’t. It can shed some self-destructive reflexes and acquire a wiser sense of national self-interest that is anchored in the nation’s ideals. Wisdom tempers egotism. This is true for both people and nations.
Or, the United States can plunge ahead self-indulgently, repeating destructive habits, acting out reckless ambitions, and getting into deeper trouble. We all know children who, for whatever reason, got older but never found themselves. This is possible for nations too, especially ones that refuse to reconcile themselves to new realities.
I am betting we will grow into our maturity and hoping that lots of Americans agree.”
The accompanying photo (above) shows the effects of an aerial spray conducted six months prior on a test site near Laredo. Federal officials considered the results "successful" in efforts to eradicate the invasive plant carrizo; however, the site now slated for defoliation contains 1000 living species, including four endangered species. This photo was taken on the Zachary Ranch in March 2008 by Dr. Jim Earhart of the Rio Grande International Study Center.
Local activist Jay J. Johnson-Castro Sr. of the Rio Grande International Study Center stated in a telephone interview that federal agents intend to eventually spray the extensive border river area, from Big Bend to Brownsville Texas. "Why would they make the initial spray in a populated area?" he queried. Clearing 1.1 miles of border between the cities of Laredo and Nuevo Laredo will cost $2 Million.
Activists on the Yahoo group "No Border Wall" urge the public to contact the office of US Attorney General Eric Holder to protest the impending action: http://www.usdoj.gov
The detrimental effect of toxic air pollutants is documented on the US Environmental Protection Agency website.
This post has been cross-posted anywhere I could put it on the internet! For info on this developing story, click "Read More"As a participant on the No Border Wall Yahoo group, I first became aware of this story Tuesday last week. As far as I know, the spraying has not yet begun, although Laredo locals expected it would begin already last week. I will return and update this post when I hear that the spraying has happened.
http://www.allvoices.com/
Tiny URL: http://tinyurl.com/cu8xwo
It appeared on the US National Indymedia site:
http://indymedia.us/en/topic/
or Tiny URL: http://tinyurl.com/c4rdom
and on a European internet citizen news site:
http://www.agoravox.com/
or Tiny URL: http://tinyurl.com/cgde8r
It ranked in the top 20 stories Wednesday on the "politics" branch of Reddit.com, and Thursday it hit #3 on the "environment" branch of Reddit.com.
Feel free to repost this story. I'm not looking for credit or for links; I just want to get the story to the public, before it is too late. This spraying will contaminate the soil for years to come, and it will contaminate the Rio Grande River, the drinking water for Nuevo Laredo, Mexico.
------
Update (2/22 PM): This story published yesterday (3/21) on an El Paso online newspaper:
http://www.newspapertree.com/news/3575-the-border-s-agent-orange-controversy
The information is still not in the mainstream media.
Obama Justice Dep. defends Rumsfeld in torture caseLet me remind you of what I previously conveyed to your CIA director, Mr. Leon Panetta:
In a brief filed Thursday evening, Obama Justice Department lawyers extended many of the same arguments made by Bush attorneys – that top government officials have qualified immunity from prosecution and that Guantanamo detainees do not have constitutional rights to due process.
The Department of Justice has asserted that a Supreme Court ruling reaffirming the rights of Guantanamo detainees to habeus corpus does not apply to plaintiffs in a case against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld because the plaintiffs were released from prison four years prior to the SCOTUS decision.
“It is fair to say that the current brief that is filed by the new administration supports a lot of the arguments that were made by the previous administration,” said Kate Toomey, an attorney with Baach Robinson & Lewis who is representing the former detainees in an interview with RAW STORY. “They continue to assert that torture was in the scope of employment and could be reasonably expected. They continue to assert that these [top officials] be entitled to immunity. They also continue to argue that detainees at Guantanamo don’t have constitutional rights.”
(...) the Convention Against Torture, which was signed by President Reagan in 1988 and ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1994, explicitly states the following among others (emphasis added):Incidentally, I ended this previous reminder of the laws of the land of your country, Mr. President, with the following probing question (addressed then to Mr. Panetta):Article 2
- Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
- No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
- An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Article 4
- Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
- Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.
Article 5
- Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
- When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
- When the alleged offender is a national of that State;
- When the victim was a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.
- Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this article.
- This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.
Article 7
- The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
- These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 1.
- Any person regarding whom proceedings are brought in connection with any of the offences referred to in article 4 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings.
Article 12
Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committee in any territory under its jurisdiction.Article 15
Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.
Are you then saying that you, and therefore the Obama administration, repudiate such laws?It would seem that I now have an unequivocal answer to this question.
"But what we cannot do is have the president of the United States state, as a matter of policy, that there is a loophole or an exception where we would sanction torture. I think that diminishes us and it sends the wrong message to the world."Therefore you, sir, are a blatant, shameless, hypocritical, and untrustworthy, liar.
It should be obvious to you now, sir, that your demonstrated legal strategies so far not only constitute implied condoning of torture, but furthermore constitute a disavowal of the law of your country regarding torture - and consequently A) this makes you directly complicit after the fact of any and all acts of torture performed under the Bush administration; and B) this makes you directly complicit after the fact of the policies of torture sanctioned/approved/encouraged/allowed by the Bush administration.Ergo: you and your administration are no better than your (criminal) predecessor and his administration.
All of which, under the same laws outlined above, render you and your administration equally guilty of criminal offences as outlined by said laws against torture.
The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal. "First and last, it's a question of money. Those men who own the earth make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the world."
Reading this morning’s headlines about A.I.G. utilizing $165 million of their $170 billion tax payer financed bailout for bonuses, reminded me of Darrow’s insight. The excuse being offered after all is that a “contract is a contract” and A.I.G. must fulfill their obligations.For what it’s worth, I personally believe all demographics must ultimately sacrifice for the greater good during this calamity. Unlike its imperial antecedents, the American empire has largely serviced the purpose of consumer excess – especially for the top. With America’s empire in decline, all hands must now be on deck to reverse our society’s cascade of ruin as we develop a new socio-economic paradigm, absent the perks and burdens of a hyper-power.
That means a tough transition for all of us as we cease to consume a quarter of the world’s resources, work to extricate ourselves from Beijing bankers and end our addiction to military conflict as a means of resolving disputes. Nonetheless, how can any president ask Americans to accept their health benefits being taxed, when A.I.G. is permitted to distribute unseemly bonuses after their conduct precipitated the current crisis? Bottom line, the worst insurance company in history is utilizing our tax dollars to reward their employees with bonuses, while the rest of us are treading water and being asked to shed even more skin.
I suspect most people understand we have to change in order to bring about change. That was my sense during the campaign as I canvassed and phonebanked. Indeed, as the Jon Stewart showdown with CNBC’s Jim Cramer illustrated, Americans are finally ready for hard truths after lies about WMD’s in Iraq while warning signs with respect to the current economic crisis were ignored. People are just desperate enough now to respond to hard truth if it’s backed up with a coherent strategy and the pain is absorbed fairly.
Alas, asking people who are currently teetering on the abyss to sacrifice has no credibility given the circumstances and messengers. How could it when tax-cheat Timothy Geithner and his plutocratic deregulating mentor from the Clinton Administration, Larry Summers, continue to subsidize thieves? The good people of A.I.G. are like the proverbial bank robbers holding bags of nitroglycerin. Give us your money they say or we’ll drop our nitroglycerin bags on what’s left of the global economy. So we continue to appease them.
Now in fairness to President Obama, he inherited what can only be described as a cluster fuck. And he hasn’t even been in office two months. Furthermore, much of the so-called political opposition as well as the establishment that critiques him, are simultaneously insipid and disingenuous. As I wrote a few days ago,
“Already you’re hearing voices question whether President Obama’s is pushing too much at once on the ‘system.’ These voices sound reasonable when they claim we should ‘fix the economy first’ and worry about health-care, energy and education later. They're enablers of capitalism’s dark underbelly, hoping to run out the clock on President Obama’s popularity and continue business as usual.”Hence, I largely support the goals of President Obama’s proposed budget and have contempt for this “establishment” that failed to address the very challenges he dares to take on. Clarence Darrow would certainly recognize those that oppose Obama’s agenda as elites making laws to “protect what they have” at the expense of everyone else.
“It gets late early around here.”
I’m patient as long we’re going in the right direction and a strong critique from the left is necessary to keep the party and administration honest. I prefer to think of it as “constructive engagement.” Recently, in a podcast interview with me longtime journalist and author, William Greider referred to it as a “righteous struggle.” Overall, I believe the creative tension has gone reasonably well on some issues and less so on others. Now that Democrats control two of the three branches of government, vigilance is even more imperative.
Translation, Baucus is willing to offer rhetorical platitudes suggesting he supports expanding health care but is really working to preserve the domain of the medical industrial complex at the expense of regular folks. According to OpenSecrets.org, these are the top five industries contributing to Baucus campaigns between 2003-2008:Entrenched moneyed interests realize the onetime Republican gravy train is irrelevant and instead hope to persuade “Blue Dog” Democrats like Evan Bayh with dollars and even lucrative jobs for their families. Another Democrat beholden to corporate interests is Montana Senator Max Baucus, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Regrettably, Baucus has been an aggressive apostle of Washington’s rewarding wealth over work culture since his election in 1978. Sadly, as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Baucus has jurisdiction over any health care legislation that congress passes.
Yesterday, Howard Dean said that unless Americans have the choice of enrolling in a new public health care plan, the system won't be made more efficient. Most Americans would prefer to have a public option for health care. Yet Senator Baucus had the following reaction:
- Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $524,813
There you have it. Baucus is beholden to Wall Street financiers at the expense of wage earners and small business entrepreneurs and the lapdog of a health care industry that prioritizes profit over wellness.His voting record certainly reflects the donations he’s received. For example, Baucus was one of eighteen Democrats to support the 2005 predatory bankruptcy legislation passed by congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush. Baucus also supported the Bush administration's catastrophic tax cuts in 2001 that helped give us the deficits so called moderate Democrats like him claim to worry about today.
Indeed, it seems moderate Democrats like Baucus always promote fiscal responsibility until it gets in the way of redistributing wealth from wage earners living paycheck to paycheck to the super rich. How the hell has this dude managed to maintain a populist image in Montana?
Some may be tempted to rationalize that Baucus is the price for having a Democratic Senator from Montana. Recent evidence however suggests that is ridiculous. In 2006, Jon Tester defeated entrenched conservative Republican incumbent Conrad Burns with a populist campaign for the senate. And Brian Schweitzer has emerged as an effective, popular and progressive governor. Indeed, as a New Yorker I wish we had Schweitzer as our governor instead of the hapless David Paterson.
Democrats such as Max Baucus are the reason I've donated to Accountability Now. Accountability Now was founded by bloggers Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher to provide a needed counterweight to pressure Democrats like Max Baucus. What I wrote about Indiana Senator Evan Bayh on March 8th is doubly true for Max Baucus:
When Max Baucus guides his finance committee with respect to the health care debate and President Obama’s budget, it is imperative he hear from us. Baucus must be convinced that failure to act on behalf of the people’s interests will result in his political extinction. That is the only language entrenched power respects.
Even if you’re not a Montana resident, Baucus obviously accepts many contributions outside his state and as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has disproportionate influence over the economic security of all Americans. It therefore seems reasonable that Americans across the country make it known to Baucus that we’ll be monitoring his actions closely and help end his career just as we helped elect Jon Tester in 2006. I did a lot of phone banking on Tester's behalf in 2006 and would be more than happy to volunteer on behalf of a liberal primary opponent to Max Baucus.
In the meantime, Baucus needs to feel the earth tremble beneath his feet. Click here for the telephone numbers of Baucus’s seven offices and here to email him.
Even with President Barack Obama in the White House, obtaining change we can believe in remains up to us. That means using our leverage to either place more liberal minded senators on that body's powerful finance committee or persuading status quo champions such as Max Baucus not to stand in our way.