...it's of the dismal economic variety. Seems you're not the only one who is a bit nervous about the financial outlook in the days ahead. Today from AP:
Consumer confidence drops to 5-year low on pessimism about jobs, income by Eileen Alt Powell, Associated Press NEW YORK – American consumers are gloomier about the economy than at any point since just before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, as slumping housing prices and soaring fuel costs depress consumer confidence to its lowest level in five years.
The Conference Board, a business-backed research group, said Tuesday that its Consumer Confidence Index plunged to 64.5 in March from a revised 76.4 in February.
The March reading was far below the 73.0 expected by analysts surveyed by Thomson/IFR and was the worst reading since the gauge registered 61.4 in March 2003, just ahead of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Weakening consumer confidence foreshadows weakening consumer spending, which could hurt the already faltering economy.
NEW YORK – The number of Americans hopping buses and grabbing subway straps has climbed to the highest level in half a century as soaring gasoline costs push more commuters to take mass transit.
U.S. mass transit ridership began to surge when gasoline hit the $3 a gallon level in 2005 and has continued to rise steadily ever since as pump prices top record after record, according to a report released Monday by the American Public Transit Association.
“As people are struggling with the increase in fuel prices, they have to make adjustments, and one of the ways they are doing that is driving less and taking public transportation more,” said William Millar, the president of the APTA.
Mass transit use increased by more than 2 percent in 2007 to the highest level in 50 years, with Americans taking more than 10 billion trips on public transport while the number of vehicle miles traveled was flat in the first 10 months of the year.
...she wrote the legislation that saved a popular Southern California surfspot from intrusion by toll road. Here's one where the good guys win, from Davis's website:
WASHINGTON – Congresswoman Susan Davis’s amendment requiring a proposed toll road through a state park to follow state environmental laws became law when President Bush signed the defense authorization bill (H.R. 4986) last night.
“This has always been about maintaining the integrity of the process that we follow for proposed transportation projects in the state,” said Davis, a member of the Armed Services Committee.“There is no reason why it should have received a special exemption from the standard process and environmental safeguards, especially when such unique natural resources are at stake.”
The proposed toll road would have a devastating impact on the unique environmental and highly utilized recreational resources at San Mateo campground and TrestlesBeach.
...and members of Congress are currently in their home districts, so now is an excellent time to contact your representative and let him or her know that you want impeachment. For all the details you need about impeachment, including your rep's phone numbers, visit AfterDowningStreet's terrific impeachment site. We've still got 11 months!
I wasn't familiar with Nancy Pelosi until those elections thrust her into the national spotlight, and when I first started paying attention to her, I thought, "Wow – for the most visible face of the Democratic Party, she sure looks like a Republican." In my experience, people with Pelosi's sense of style – power suits, fancy hairdos, and plastic surgery – tend to lean right of center and to put the will of the big bucks in front of the will of the people. But in the warm glow of the optimism of November 2006, I told myself that appearances can be deceiving and began hoping for the best.
It didn't take long for Pelosi and her fellow Democratic party leaders to let me down. Instead of stepping up as the antidote to Bush's poison and delivering the leftward pendulum swing so many of us were hoping for, Pelosi's House largely has failed to distinguish itself from the delegations that bowed to Bush from 2001 through 2006. And I'm not the only one who isn't digging Nancy's chili: approval ratings for Congress overall are even lower than approval ratings for Bush and have been for some time.
Back in July 2007, Cindy Sheehan promised that she would run against Nancy Pelosi if Nancy failed to pursue the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. Well, Nancy failed, and Cindy is following up by running against Pelosi this November.
I think that campaigns like Cindy's – where real Americans run against the rich insiders who currently control Washington – are the clearest path to the big changes Americans are hungry for. I've donated to Cindy's congressional campaign, and I hope you will, too.
...at least for me, are the ones below. These numbers aren't getting top billing in the good old MSM, probably because they suggest that the Republican presidential primaries are essentially meaningless, and that the Democratic nominee will stomp in November.
January 16, 2008 John Conyers, Jr., Chairman House Judiciary Committee 2138 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Conyers:
You have been a tireless champion of providing oversight to an Administration that has run roughshod over our constitution, that operates with s no limits on executive branch authority and one that has repeatedly flouted the investigations and oversight the 110th Congress has tried to provide over the past year. We have the greatest respect for the work you have done and believe that impeachment hearings pertaining to Vice President Cheney are the best way to move that work forward.
Impeachment hearings will allow for the exact kind of oversight that you and the Democratic leadership have provided regarding the actions of the Administration but without the opportunity for the Bush Administration to ignore lawful requests for information, refuse subpoenas and effectively limit its own oversight.
Impeachment hearings can provide the opportunity to cut through the executive privilege defenses and force this Administration to answer a Congress it has clearly chosen to ignore. We know you would agree that as Members of Congress, we can not allow legitimate oversight to be thwarted or such a dangerous precedent to stand...As you know, the charges against Vice President Cheney include providing Congress and the American people false intelligence leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens.
We trust that you will hold a sober investigation and let the facts determine the outcome as you have as Chairman this past year. We sincerely believe that impeachment hearings are the appropriate and necessary next step given what we have seen of this Administration. Chairman Conyers, we are respectfully asking you join us and concerned citizens around the country in supporting impeachment hearings.
Sincerely,
Clarke, Yvette D., NY, 11th Clay, Wm. Lacy, MO, 1st Cohen, Steve, TN, 9th * Farr, Sam, CA, 17th Grijalva, Raúl M., AZ, 7th Moore, Gwen, WI, 4th Moran, James P., VA, 8th Towns, Edolphus, NY, 10th Wynn, Albert Russell, MD, 4th Baldwin, Tammy, WI, 2nd * Capuano, Michael E., MA, 8th Gutierrez, Luis V., IL, 4th * Thompson, Mike, CA, 1st Wexler, Robert, FL, 19th *
Some say Ralph Nader is a key reason why we ended up with Bush and Cheney in the first place. For many years after the 2000 election, I thought Bush was disproving Nader's main argument: that there wasn't enough difference between the leaderships of the Democratic and the Republican parties. But given that Hillary and the majority of the Democrats in Congress supported the Iraq War - and that most of those same Demos won't pick up the impeachment ball - I'm not so sure that Nader was wrongheaded in his run against Bush/Cheney and Gore/Lieberman.
In this 3-minute YouTube snippet from a 2007 Nader speech, he shares the bizarre reason one Democratic congressman cited when asked why he won't support impeachment despite the fact that a majority of his constituents do:
Less than 44 hours after NBC sent a congratulatory note and an invitation to Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich to participate in the Jan. 15 Democratic Presidential debate in Las Vegas, the network notified the campaign this morning it was changing it announced criteria, rescinding its invitation, and excluding Kucinich from the debate.
NBC Political Director Chuck Todd notified the Kucinich campaign this morning that, although Kucinich had met the qualification criteria publicly announced on December 28, the network was “re-doing” the criteria, excluding Kucinich, and planning to invite only Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and former senator John Edwards. The criteria announced last month included a fourth-place or better showing in a national poll. The USA/Gallup poll earlier this month showed Kucinich in fourth place among the Democratic contenders.
In an email to the Kucinich campaign at 2:35 p.m. on Wednesday, January 9, Democratic Party debates consultant Jenny Backus wrote: “Congratulations on another hard-fought contest. Now that New Hampshire is over, we are on to Nevada and our Presidential Debate on Tuesday January 15. This letter serves as an official invitation for your candidate to participate in the Nevada Presidential Debate at Cashman Theatre in downtown Las Vegas. You have met the criteria set by NBC and the Debate.”
Todd notified the Kucinich campaign this morning that the network had decided to change the criteria and limit participation in the debate to only three candidates.
...that's the argument explored in a fascinating post on LittleCountryLost, an superb blog focused on stories left out of the mainstream media. The discussion starts with the clip below, an excerpt of a November '07 interview with Benazir Bhutto, in which she names people who she thinks want to kill her. According to Bhutto, one of these people - Omar Sheikh - "murdered Osama Bin Laden." Watch for yourself:
LittleCountryLost offers a timeline of Bin Laden-related events, and points out a troubling change in Bush administration rhetoric regarding Bin Laden. If he did die some time in the 18 months after 9/11, the case for the war on terror would have suffered, right? In that time period, Bush & Co. certainly shifted the emphasis away from Bin Laden:
September 15, 2001 – President Bush says of bin-Laden, “If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he will be sorely mistaken.”
September 17, 2001 – President Bush says, “I want justice. And there’s an old poster out West, I recall, that says, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive.’”
November 7, 2001 - Pakistani reporter Hamid Mir interviews Osama bin-Laden in person.
November 25, 2001 - Osama bin-Laden gives his last known public speech to his followers in Milawa, Afghanistan, a village located on the route from Tora Bora to the Pakistani border.
December 15, 2001- Osama bin-Laden's voice is reportedly intercepted for the last time communicating with his fighters in Tora Bora via his shortwave radio
December 17, 2001 - US Intelligence and Pentagon officials admit they have lost Osama bin-Laden
December 26, 2001 - Article about Osama bin-Laden's funeral is published in Pakistan and Egypt. The funeral allegedly takes place about 10 days earlier. The article is also discussed by Fox News.
December 28, 2001– President Bush says, “Our objective is more than bin-Laden”
January 18, 2002 – Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf tells CNN that he believes Osama bin-Laden to be dead
January 27, 2002 - Vice President Dick Cheney says that Osama bin-Laden "isn't that big of a threat. Bin Laden connected to this worldwide organization of terror is a threat."
January 27, 2002 – White House Chief of Staff Andy Card tells CNN, “"I do not know for a fact that he's alive. I happen to believe he's probably alive… Our overall objective is to defeat terrorism, wherever it is around the world. And so, our objective is not to get Osama bin Laden."
January 29, 2002 – President Bush delivers his first State of the Union address since 9/11. While he labels Iraq, Iran, and North Korea the “axis of evil”, he fails to mention Osama bin-Laden at all.
March 13, 2002 – President Bush says, “Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all… He’s a person who’s now been marginalized.… I just don’t spend that much time on him.… I truly am not that concerned about him.”
April 4, 2002 - Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Myers says, "The goal has never been to get bin-Laden"
October 14, 2002 – President Bush says, “I don’t know whether bin-Laden is alive or dead”
October 16, 2002 – Middle East Newsline reports that Israeli Intelligence officials confirmed that Israel and the United States believe Osama bin-Laden was killed in mid-December 2001 during the Tora Bora bombing campaign.
This timeline, with Osama bin-Laden's death allegedly occurring in the middle of December 2001, makes it possible that Omar Sheikh could have committed the murder. From October 2001 through January 19, 2002, Omar Sheikh was living openly in his home in Lahore, Pakistan. His positions as leader of Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (a Taliban and Osama bin-Laden partner) and ISI agent (the source of funds for Harkat-ul-Mujahideen) would also have given him means for access to Osama bin-Laden.
...congrats on your new job. I always suspected you were working for a higher power, and now I know for sure. And now all your connections are really gonna pay off!
Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, who left office last June, has taken up a part-time job with a Wall Street bank on an estimated $1 million salary.
Blair will work with JP Morgan Chase, a firm with assets of $1.5 trillion and operations in more than 50 countries. He will advise the bank on global political and strategic issues, a company statement said.
"We operate our business all over the world, and Tony Blair will bring our leaders and clients a unique and invaluable global perspective that is especially critical in turbulent times like these," said Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of the company, in the statement.
Neither Blair nor the bank would say how much the former PM would be paid. A New York recruitment consultant though told the Financial Times that the job was likely to be worth more than $987,000 (£500,000) a year.
Advisory jobs such as the one Blair has accepted are popular among former world leaders. His predecessor as prime minister, John Major, took a position with the Carlyle Group, a private investment house, as did former U.S. President George H.W. Bush.
...who still strikes me as the only candidate who is talking about the substantive changes our country needs. John Edwards' anti-corporate bluster belies his big-money ties to the Fortress Investment Group. And ABC/Disney's decision to exclude Kucinich from the New Hampshire debate is telling...Kucinich is the candidate that the corporates are really afraid of!
RE: New Hampshire, Iowa and Edwards
Dear Supporter,
For the record:
New Hampshire is the first state where we are aggressively campaigning. Due to the Party lockout in Iowa, we chose to focus on New Hampshire.
I am the only person running for President who voted against the war, against funding the war 100% of the time, against the Patriot Act, and who stands for a universal single-payer not-for-profit healthcare system. Nevertheless I was excluded from Saturday night's ABC Presidential debate, or four tone monologue as it was.
In answer to your questions about why I didn't support former Senator John Edwards on the second ballot in Iowa: I have serious concerns about his connections to a Wall Street hedge fund, Fortress Investment Group. While attacking others for accepting campaign money from Washington lobbyists, he is up to his ears in money from Wall Street special interests.
He made half a million dollars in a single year for attending a few meetings for Fortress and has invested a substantial part of his own personal wealth in the hedge fund whose portfolios are responsible for sub-prime predatory lending practices, Medicare privatization, and an entire range of corporate sharp dealings that are driving the middle class into poverty.
While I indicated Senator Obama as a preferred second choice in Iowa, Progressives have fundamental disagreements with him and all of the other Presidential candidates on most of their major positions on the issues.
We must have the courage of our convictions to fully support and vote for what it is we really want. For once, we must realize our power, stop playing tactical games, and vote as a bloc - which, as you know, is what the religious right does and why they often win.
We Progressives are in the majority in this election. We will win only when we refuse to compromise and vote with integrity.
...a couple members of the Wavelength crew took a trip to Malaysia, visiting cities such as Kuala Lumpur and Melaka. Malaysia is a wondrous country, from jungles to beaches and everything in between. And the people's affectionate respect for citizens of other countries was evident in the many smiles and greetings we received in each area we explored.
Of the many contrasts with the United States, perhaps the most striking to me was Malaysia's lack of free speech, which manifests in forms such as censorship of the press and criminal penalties for critics of the government. A website like Wavelength's would never fly in Malaysia, for example, and the country's citizens could get in trouble for wearing t-shirts like the ones we offer. With this in mind, we feel quite lucky to be Americans, and quite proud of the USA.
Of Malaysia's many similarities with the United States, one that I noticed repeatedly was the sharp differences in living standards across the upper, middle, and lower classes. From gleaming office towers to high-rise dormitories to aluminum-roofed shanties, Malaysia's citizens - like those in the United States, and perhaps all countries - live their lives in a wide range of conditions, and with a broadly varying command of resources.
I hope to write more on Malaysia in future posts. For now, I'll just add that the country was warm, welcoming, beautiful, and steeped in history. And fans of either Indian or Chinese cuisine will love Malaysia's authentic and affordable restaurants.
...back in the short-lived era of the in-the-black federal budget, Greenspan told Congress it had to start giving back taxpayer money, lest a ballooning surplus weigh down the economy. When deficits returned a couple years later, he told Congress that Social Security was suddenly in crisis, and only savable with private accounts.
Why hadn't he said anything about Social Security's needs during the surplus? Shenanigans. Greenspan was not on our side on Social Security, and now this NY Times eye-opener shows where he stood on subprime lending:
Edward M. Gramlich, a Federal Reserve governor who died in September, warned nearly seven years ago that a fast-growing new breed of lenders was luring many people into risky mortgages they could not afford. But when Mr. Gramlich privately urged Fed examiners to investigate mortgage lenders affiliated with national banks, he was rebuffed by Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman.
In 2001, a senior Treasury official, Sheila C. Bair, tried to persuade subprime lenders to adopt a code of “best practices” and to let outside monitors verify their compliance. None of the lenders would agree to the monitors, and many rejected the code itself. Even those who did adopt those practices, Ms. Bair recalled recently, soon let them slip.
And leaders of a housing advocacy group in California, meeting with Mr. Greenspan in 2004, warned that deception was increasing and unscrupulous practices were spreading. John C. Gamboa and Robert L. Gnaizda of the Greenlining Institute implored Mr. Greenspan to use his bully pulpit and press for a voluntary code of conduct.
“He never gave us a good reason, but he didn’t want to do it,” Mr. Gnaizda said last week. “He just wasn’t interested.”
...amongst a trio of members of Congress: Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.)...and two of his colleagues on the House judiciary committee - Florida's Robert Wexler and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin - have penned an op-ed piece calling for committee hearings on a bill to impeact Dick Cheney on a variety of charges, including allegations of manipulating intelligence to boost the case for war with Iraq.
"The issues at hand are too serious to ignore, including credible allegations of abuse of power that if proven may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under our constitution," the op-ed says. "The charges against Vice President Cheney relate to his deceptive actions leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens."
It's heartening to see a few members step up like this. What's discouraging is the response line out of Democratic leadership: "it'll take us away from other, more important things." Ah, love to see them flash that old killer instinct.
Another frustrating note on matter is the response from His Majesty's Media the Mainstream: the three Congressfolks tried but couldn't get their editorial published in any big papers. Fortunately, I found a smaller independent willing to point the finger at Cheney:
"Look into my eyes," Cheneybot commanded, "And repeat after me: impeachment is not an option."
...is some justice, in the form of impeachment of Bush and Cheney.
To let everybody know, we've added a shirt that borrows an immortal line from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In the spirit of Dr. King's rallying cry against the scourge of racial oppression, this shirt calls out the impeachable crimes of the Bush administration.
That justice will prevail, and that Bush and Cheney will be held accountable for their crimes...
Check the map for more candidate-by-candidate info, for candidates from both major parties.
Kucinich supporters like me often lament how the media seems to ignore his campaign, but the maps slices at right offer a different perspective on why he isn't getting much voter traction. He's got New Hampshire covered, but the top 3 candidates seem to be stumping much harder in Iowa and elsewhere.
A note, however: it could be that Kucinich is not hitting Iowa hard because he has bigger plans, beyond the Democratic nomination. Stay tuned...
...with 4 years left in a term, do the voters who elected him get any recourse?
Today, Trent Lott announced he would retire from the U.S. Senate by the end of this year, though he'd just been re-elected in 2006. The reason? To paraphrase MSNBC, it's so he can become a lobbyist before tougher lobbying rules take effect in the next few months. More specifically, here's how one commenter sums it up:
"If you retire after January 1, 2008, you must wait 2 years before becoming a lobbyist. That's the reason Hair Helmet is resigning now. It's all about continuing to enrich himself at the taxpayer's expense."
To me, this is one more example of how we need more than just the money out of our political system - we need to get money fiend personalities out of our political system. In my opinion, congresspeople should take vows of penury; once elected, they should receive the median income of the district they represent - for the rest of their lives.
That would certainly shift the D.C. personality mix a bit. For example, I don't think Bush would have thrown his hat into such a ring. Which is practically grounds for resting the case.
...for companies like Halliburton, a firm whose stock market value currently totals $35 billion. Recently, I listened to a public conference call between Wall Street analysts and Dyncorp, sort of a mini version of Dick Cheney's HAL. Here are some excerpts from the call, which was led by Dyncorp's CEO Herbert Lanese and offered a firsthand view of the business of war:
"...our CIVPOL program in Iraq was extended through November of this year, and we’ve since been informed that a further extension through February of 2008 will be funded soon. Our CIVPOL program in Afghanistan has been extended through August of 2008, while the Afghanistan Poppy Eradication Program has been extended through September of 2008. We’ve also been re-awarded extensions on both our Contract Field Teams program, our CFT program, and our War Reserve Materiel or WRM contracts, both of those through September of 2008."
"The CIVPOL, or Civilian Police Program, in Iraq and Afghanistan, is a very large and complex program. And as you might imagine, as with other large complex government contracts, it’s not unusual for the contractor and its government customer to identify and address a number of issues that may arise during the course of contractor performance. We are, above all else, serious about the integrity of our operations. Neither I nor any of the people who work for me at this point in our careers are going to damage our good reputations with something silly."
"It is very important for our shareholders to understand that we compete with Blackwater in a very narrow field that currently represents 2% of our revenue. I want to repeat that: 2% of our revenue. So when you compare us to Blackwater, 2% of our revenue is on the same basis as Blackwater. Unfortunately, it is very visible work that tends to attract a disproportionate amount of attention that I believe unfairly distorts the image of Dyncorp." Herbert Lanese: Yeah, and the Marine Corps has just put out it’s own solicitation for [armored vehicles] and it’s in the 20-some-thousands as well, too, and that’s not in any of the numbers I am talking about yet. So look, I just think it’s got great opportunity for us. It’s something I am really excited about. Wall Street analyst: Your enthusiasm is palpable.Thank you very much. Herbert Lanese: [laughter] Yes, thank you. Sorry to be emotional on these calls, but I do get excited about this stuff. I love this stuff I do.
U.S. TROOP LEVELS: January 2007: 137,000 October 2007: 170,000
CASUALTIES as of 10/31/07: Confirmed U.S. military deaths: 3,838 Confirmed U.S. military wounded: 28,385 Deaths of civilian employees of U.S. gov't contractors: 1,073 Iraqi civilian deaths from war-related violence: more than 75,000 (est.) Assassinated Iraqi academics: 336 Journalists killed on assignment: 122
COST: Stepped-up military operations are costing about $12 billion a month, with Iraq accounting for $10 billion per month, according to congressional analysis. Total cost to the U.S. government so far is more than $464 billion. A January 2007 study by Linda Bilmes of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government put the total projected cost of providing medical care and disability benefits to veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan at $350 billion to $700 billion.
OIL PRODUCTION: Prewar: 2.58 million barrels per day Oct. 21, 2007: 2.36 million barrels per day
ELECTRICITY Prewar nationwide: 3,958 megawatts. Hours per day (est.): four to eight Oct. 23, 2007, nationwide: 4,790 megawatts. Hours per day: 13.1 Prewar Baghdad: 2,500 megawatts. Hours per day (est.): 16-24 Oct. 23, 2007, Baghdad: Megawatts not available. Hours per day: 8.9 Note: Current Baghdad megawatt figures are no longer reported by the U.S. State Department's Iraq Weekly Status Report.
TELEPHONES: Prewar land lines: 833,000 March 13, 2007: 1,111,000 Prewar cell phones: 80,000 March 13, 2007: 8,720,038
WATER: Prewar: 12.9 million people had potable water Oct. 18, 2007: 19.6 million people have potable water
SEWERAGE Prewar: 6.2 million people served Oct. 18, 2007: 11.3 million people served
INTERNAL REFUGEES: Oct. 23, 2007: At least 2.3 million people have been displaced inside Iraq...Iraqis have made some 19,800 asylum claims during the first six months of 2007, a 45 percent increase compared to the previous six months, when 13,600 applications were received.
EMIGRANTS: Prewar: 500,000 Iraqis living abroad. Oct. 23, 2007: More than 2.2 million in neighboring countries.
... this past weekend, to speak at a gathering at the home of a UCSD biology professor. Kucinich, his wife Elizabeth, and her mother all turned out for the occasion, and the crowd responded warmly to Dennis's calls for strength through peace, a national health care system, and a "Works Green" Administration.
...that's the moral from a Reuters article on dwindling turnout at recent anti-war events, particularly in DC. Issues include fatigue, frustration, in-fighting among activist groups, and the Internet, which may have eclipsed the street corner as the place to protest:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Crowds at antiwar rallies in Washington have dwindled even as U.S. opinion has turned against the war in Iraq, as organizers feud and participants question the effectiveness of the street protests. Rival antiwar groups, which in years past jointly sponsored massive rallies on the National Mall, have promoted separate protests recently or decided to steer clear of the capital altogether...
United for Peace and Justice, which has tried to focus on ending the Iraq war, drew 100,000 people to a January protest. The group plans 11 regional demonstrations later this month, but none in Washington. ANSWER has called for antiwar groups to join forces for a large rally in the spring...
Antiwar leaders say recent smaller protests reflect new tactics, not disorganization. Smaller activist groups like Code Pink have been a colorful, disruptive presence at congressional hearings and appearances by Bush administration officials. "There's times when we've had half a million people out in the streets, and there's times when it's important just to be there," Langley said.
But others said it is less likely they'll head to Washington at all. "People are tired, they are frustrated because they didn't expect this to go on so long," said Laura Bonham, a spokeswoman for Progressive Democrats of America, which lobbies lawmakers to support a withdrawal. "It's like, well, we can stay home."
Largely absent from the actions are young people, who were the majority of Vietnam-era protesters -- perhaps because they do not risk being drafted into the military or from a sense that they can express their opposition to the war on the Internet, rather than on the streets, [Hamilton College history professor Maurice] Isserman said.
...are the highlights of this 20-minute video from back in July, when peace movement hero Cindy Sheehan celebrated her 50th birthday at Camp Casey in Crawford, Texas, and passed the camp's deed to Air America's Bree Walker. Here's some footage from a special weekend, including music from Jesse Dyen and Hank Woji.
...comes in the prologue to Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, a fascinating 2004 confession by John Perkins, who built a career of furthering the international interests of what he now calls "the corporatocracy." His story sheds light on the self-serving motives behind much of the push for globalization and offers a behind-the-scenes look at how the corporatocracy asserts its power in developing countries around the world:
We economic hit men are crafty; we learned from history. Today we do not carry swords. We do not wear armor or clothes that set us apart. In countries like Ecuador, Nigeria, and Indonesia, we dress like local schoolteachers and shop owners...We visit project sites and stroll through impoverished villages...We cover the conference tables of government committees with our spreadsheets and financial projections, and we lecture at the Harvard Business School about the miracles of macroeconomics. We are on the record, in the open...
However - and this is a very large caveat - if we fail, an even more sinister breed steps in, ones we economic hit men refer to as the jackals...The jackals are always there, lurking in the shadows. When they emerge, heads of state are overthrown or die in violent "accidents." And if by chance the jackals fail, as they failed in Afghanistan and Iraq, then the old models resurface. When the jackals fail, young Americans are sent in to kill and to die.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush and the U.S. Congress registered record-low approval ratings in a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday, and a new monthly index measuring the mood of Americans dipped slightly on deepening worries about the economy.
Only 29 percent of Americans gave Bush a positive grade for his job performance, below his worst Zogby poll mark of 30 percent in March. A paltry 11 percent rated Congress positively, beating the previous low of 14 percent in July...
The national survey of 1,011 likely voters, taken September 13 through September 16, found barely one-quarter of Americans, or 27 percent, believe the country is headed in the right direction. Nearly 62 percent think the country is on the wrong track...
Most of the polling was done after a speech by Bush and testimony to Congress by the top commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, indicating the United States would make some reductions but planned to keep high troop levels in Iraq for the foreseeable future.
...this satisfying press release, with an interesting challenge to Senator Clinton. Key excerpts:
"During the Slate/Yahoo/Huffington Post debate, which aired online today, Senator Clinton said the difference between lobbyists and regular Americans is an 'artificial distinction.' She is wrong. These lobbyists are legally required to register with the government to influence legislation. And, more than most, Senator Clinton should know that Washington is awash with campaign money from these lobbyists. It is wrong and it has to stop...
"John Edwards believes it's time to end the game and be honest with the American people. It's time for us to have the strength to say no to Washington lobbyists' money so we can deliver the real change America deserves. That's why, once again, John Edwards renews his challenge to Senator Clinton to join with him in demanding the Democratic Party lead the way to real reform by refusing, as a party, to take campaign contributions from Washington lobbyists."
...at my favorite online casino reveals the following payouts for bets on who's going to win the Democratic nomination:
Hillary Clinton 2 - 3 Barack Obama 3 - 2 John Edwards 5 – 1 Al Gore 7 – 2 Bill Richardson 10 - 1 Joe Biden 15 - 1 Chris Dodd 60 - 1 Dennis Kucinich 60 - 1 John Kerry 50 – 1
How to interpret these odds? It's easy: the first number is the amount you win if you bet the second number and your candidate is victorious. So you'd win $2 for every $3 you bet on Hillary, $3 for every $2 you bet on Obama, $5 for every $1 you bet on Edwards, and so on.
Now, I'm a Dennis Kucinich supporter, and I will vote for him in Cali's primary on February 5. But for reasons I don't understand, most of my fellow Democrats are not down with Kucinich For President, even though many admit that he is the candidate whose views most closely reflect their own. Apparently sheep, like horses, can be led to water but not counted on to drink it. Anyway, with a heavy heart, I crossed Kucinich off my list of potential bets.
Somehow it was much easier to cross off Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. And I crossed off Al Gore and John Kerry with enthusiasm; those losers have had their shot at the presidency and couldn't even win against George W. Bush. I could have won against George W. Bush! (Spare me the whining about Florida, Ohio, and election theft - if either Gore or Kerry were worth a damn, they would have blown Bush away, whether Kathleen Harris was stuffing ballots in her bra or not.)
So I got down to Hillary, Barak, and John Edwards, and I took another long, hard look at the odds above. I tried my best to envision Hillary or Barak winning the nomination. Then I plopped $100 on Edwards.
Edwards is no slam dunk, but he's a man, he's white, and he's a household name - a formula that has met with some success in the past. Add the fact that Edwards is a Southern boy with a made-for-TV smile, and 5-1 starts to look awful compelling. Then again, Hillary does have Rupert Murdoch in her corner...
...heard him speak at a meeting of the San Diego County Young Democrats. Filner had just returned from Iraq, a trip he made in conjunction with his new role as chairman of the House's Veterans Affairs committee. Filner seemed tired, but he was still interesting, primarily speaking to the group about the amazing work of the people in our armed forces, and how those people deserve as much government attention on the way home from war as they do on the way to it.
Filner peppered his talk with some great stats on the military and on the entrenchment of politicians in Congress. One interesting stat on the latter topic, for instance, is that - in the House of Representatives - only about 25 of 435 seats are seriously contended each election cycle. And we wonder why the people's will is stymied?
Here are some other mind-boggling tidbits Filner shared:
--Members of the Soviet Union's Communist Party won re-election 97.0% of the time. --Members of the United States Congress win re-election 98.6% of the time.
--The average soldier in Iraq sustains 7 (seven) concussions per tour of duty.
--58,000 U.S. soldiers were killed in the Vietnam War. --A higher number have killed themselves since coming home from the War.
--Roughly 50%* of our nation's homeless are veterans of the Vietnam War.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Veterans make up one in four homeless people in the United States, though they are only 11 percent of the general adult population, according to a report to be released Thursday.
And homelessness is not just a problem among middle-age and elderly veterans. Younger veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are trickling into shelters and soup kitchens seeking services, treatment or help with finding a job.
...are these gems from dear President Bush, on his plans for the post-presidency era of his life. From a NYTimes.com article on Dead Certain, a forthcoming book with a lengthy Bush interview, by Robert Draper. Don't miss the part toward the end, where he describes the central goal of remaining time in office.
First, Mr. Bush said, “I’ll give some speeches, just to replenish the ol’ coffers.” With assets that have been estimated as high as nearly $21 million, Mr. Bush added, “I don’t know what my dad gets — it’s more than 50-75” thousand dollars a speech, and “Clinton’s making a lot of money.”
Then he said, “We’ll have a nice place in Dallas,” where he will be running what he called “a fantastic Freedom Institute” promoting democracy around the world. But he added, “I can just envision getting in the car, getting bored, going down to the ranch.”
For now, though, Mr. Bush told the author, Robert Draper, in a later session, “I’m playing for October-November.” That is when he hopes the Iraq troop increase will finally show enough results to help him achieve the central goal of his remaining time in office: “To get us in a position where the presidential candidates will be comfortable about sustaining a presence,” and, he said later, “stay longer.”
But fully aware of his standing in opinion polls, Mr. Bush said his top commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus would perhaps do a better job selling progress to the American people than he could.
...and boo the White House, boo Congress, boo Duke University. From an article on NYTimes.com today:
White House Is Gaining Confidence It Can Win Fight in Congress Over Iraq Policy SHERYL GAY STOLBERG WASHINGTON, Aug. 29 — The White House is growing more confident that it can beat back efforts by Congressional Democrats to shift course in Iraq, a significant turnabout from two months ago, when a string of Republican defections had administration officials worried that President Bush’s troop buildup was in serious danger on Capitol Hill.
Current and former administration officials say they realize that the September battle over the troop buildup will be difficult. But they also say the president’s hand is stronger now than it was in early July, when Republican senators like Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico and Richard G. Lugar of Indiana publicly called for a change of course.
“There is a tonal shift, and that is important, but there is always the chance that it could be ephemeral, in the same way that the panic of early July proved ephemeral,” said Peter D. Feaver, who helped draft the buildup strategy as an official with the National Security Council but recently returned to his post as a political science professor at Duke University. “I don’t detect any triumphalism in the White House.”
A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity to avoid upstaging the president, said there was “a sense the dynamic has changed.” But the official was also cautious, adding: “I don’t want to portray overconfidence. This is a very important debate, and September is going to be a very important month.”
...from the perspective of the people, it ain't exactly a record to pin up on the refrigerator. And speaking of inflation, you seen the price of milk lately?!
UPDATE Aug21: A very well-informed reader clued me in on a fascinating critique of the New York Times article mentioned above. As I read the critique, I grew increasingly hostile at what began to seem like clear bias on the part of the Times. Then I read the comments below the article - and was delighted to note that the author of the Times article had weighed in with a thorough response.
