NY Times "We Cannot Recognize Our Country"

Since 9/11, I have lost much respect for the "paper of record" in the U.S. Yes, Judith Miller showed journalistic courage in refusing to rat out sources on the Scooter Libby fiasco--but first, she wrote all sorts of crap that helped fuel the fire for the war in Iraq. (She was basically a stenographer for the Bush propaganda, without ever checking to see if it was true. You know, without exercising proper journalistic skepticism and doing some digging?) Then there was the fake stories scandal related to a now-fired reporter. Then, since I have friends in Africa and Central Asia, I began finding all kinds of errors in their coverage of (and editorials on) international news. Which made me suspect their coverage on domestic news, too.

But as this editorial this morning on New Year's Eve shows, every once in awhile the Times gets it right! This is so right it's almost like they remembered to be journalists!

Wow! What's next? Supporting the movement to impeach Bush & Cheney? Nah, probably not. Still, I hope this editorial is repeated throughout the nation--starting with the Louisville Courier-Journal and the Lexington Herald-Times.

Why the 2008 Elections Are So Important

Before I started this blog a few weeks ago, I posted on my other blog the reasons I believe the '08 presidential election is so important that ANY of the Democratic candidates are better than ANY of the GOP candidates running: the courts and the rule of law. But there are many reasons why I believe that all of the elections of '08, not just the presidency, will be the most important in a generation:

• The Bush administration was the first time that "movement conservatives," who began taking over the Republican Party in the '70s and first won the presidency in '80, ran all 3 branches of government (at least, from Jan. '01 to Nov. '06). So, the public had its first full experience of the philosophy of modern conservatism in complete control. Polls show we didn't much like it--but the November elections are our chance to repudiate this political philosophy resoundingly--in a way that changes the landscape for a generation.
• That's why the GOP is trying to make the public believe that what it disliked was just G.W. Bush--or just bad news from Iraq, or just Congressional gridlock. We have to make clear that we reject the very forces that brought Bush to power.
• The climate crisis will not wait another 4 years, never mind another 8. This is our last chance to get laws that will actually have enough teeth in them to tackle the enormity of the problem.
• We have a chance to tell corporate Democrats of the DLC and other DINOS (Democrats in Name Only) that going back to the Clinton years of the '90s, while an improvement, is not enough. We need bigger change than that. Indeed, for many of us progressives, the Clinton years were a huge disappointment--one that only looks good now because these last 7 years have been so atrocious.
• I am a devout Christian--married to a minister. But I am no fan of the Religious Right. Back when Republican Sen. John McCain actually told the truth (2000), he rightly called them "agents of intolerance." For a variety of reasons, the Religious Right is currently divided and, at least, on the back foot. (Predictions of its demise are premature). Many younger evangelicals are rediscovering the evangelical left that I knew in the '70s--in which faith propelled one to work for racial and gender justice, to end poverty, to care for creation, to work for peace. Not to demonize immigrants, gays, persons of other religions, scientists, or atheists. Many of the leaders of the RR are aging or dying. The ones which remain are divided about the GOP candidates for president--or are sitting this one out. This election is a chance to break the electoral power of the RR--not in the name of militant atheism (although folks like Christopher Hitchens are a result of the RR), though we protect atheists and agnostics, of course. No, we reject the RR in the name of the Constitution, and of the ideal of America as a place where all faiths are respected--and the consciences of those who have no particular religious faith, too. Rejecting the RR means restoring tolerance, respect, reason, scientific integrity, and church-state separation.
• This election will determine whether or not we can win back the respect of the community of nations or whether we will continue to become a rogue nation that is a bigger threat to peace and stability than anything Osama bin Laden can do. It will determine whether or not we honor treaties or continue to "unsign them." It will determine our attitude toward international law--and the institutions of international law--most of whom we helped to build in the first place.
• This election may be our last chance for a generation or more to save the gains of the New Deal and try to restore the best of the Great Society: To return us to a mainly middle class society in which poverty and homelessness is rare, in which extremes of wealth and poverty are absent, in which progressive taxation ensures that all pull their weight and that much-needed public institutions and services have the funding needed. (We won't solve all this with one election, but it could determine the direction for a generation or more.)
• How we treat minority populations, not just racial and ethnic minorities, but sexual minorities, gender identity minorities, religious minorities, and those with unpopular viewpoints will be greatly affected for good or ill by this election.
• We blew the chance for universal healthcare in 1992-3. This may be our last chance to join every other industrialized nation and make healthcare a universal right, not a privilege of wealth.

The list could go on for pages. This is enough. It will require active citizenship. College students: If you are not registered to vote, change that immediately. Then get registration forms and register everyone you know, everyone in your dorm, sorority, fraternity, etc. Pass out voter registration forms at every ballgame, protest, concert and dormroom bull session.

Write letters to the editors of local papers. Volunteer for candidates' campaigns (start with Andrew Horne's) Pass out literature and buttons and T-shirts and yard signs and bumper stickers. Staff a phone bank. Contribute money. March against the war and against torture. Get involved with social change organizations.

Democracy is NOT A SPECTATOR SPORT. A sign I saw said, "Democracy is like sex--it works better when you participate." Well, maybe not. If democracy were really like sex, people would not need to be ENCOURAGED to participate! Democracy is hardly perfect--but it sure beats alternatives. We need it to work. We need your participation.

This is the year. Now is the time. We are the people we have been waiting for. In 2008, we take back our country.

Another Sign of Hope

Navy JAG Lt. Commander Andrew Williams has resigned his military commission over the alleged use of torture by the U.S. and the alleged destruction of videotapes of said torture. Williams had already been outraged when Brigadeer Gen. Thomas Hartmann, the legal counsel for the detainees at the Gitmo Gulag, repeatedly refused to call the hypothetical waterboarding of an American pilot by the Iranian government "torture."

Some of my peacenik friends are too dismissive of all military personnel as having no consciences. Although I am a pacifist who became a conscientious objector in 1983 while serving in the U.S. Army, I have never shared the disdain with which SOME (far from all) peace folk hold the military. I come from a military family and know that disagreements over all use of violence does not equate with a blind acceptance of violence and totalitarian rule. Really, some liberals have got to wake up to the fact that many great peacemakers are former members of the military--including Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, the late Philip Berrigan, all the fine folks at Veterans for Peace, Vietnam Veterans Against War, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, Gold Star Families for Peace, etc. And some of our biggest warmongers and torture fans are civilians who deliberately avoided military service ("chickenhawks") like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, John Ashcroft, Scooter Libby, Condoleeza Rice, Saxby Chambliss, and, Kentucky's own Chief Chickenhawk, Mitch McConnell.

I am impressed with the many military personnel who have protested this war and the torture and other human rights violations it has engendered. They include Navy Lt. Commander Charles Swift who vigorously and successfully defended the rights of Osama bin Laden's driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan--all the way to the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. (Of course, then Congress attempted to undo that great work by passing the horrible Military Commissions Act of 2006.) Swift was passed over for promotion and forced out of the Navy. Others have paid even higher prices--while most of this nation's civilian population has yet to even write an angry letter to the editor of a local paper!

Public visible resignations of office, like public refusal or return of awards and honors, is a form of nonviolent protest and can be very effective. (Imagine where we would have been today, for instance, if then-Sec. of State Colin Powell, instead of rejecting only part of the speech he gave before the UN in '02 had simply refused to prostitute himself before what he had to know was a tissue of lies and half-truths. What if he had resigned in protest of the march to invade Iraq?) The resignation of high ranking military attorneys like Lt. Cmdr. Williams gives added pressure to the investigation of both the existence and destruction of the torture tapes. We owe folks like Lt. Cmdr. Williams not only our thanks for their military service, but also their service to our country in refusing to go along with the continued shredding of our Constitution and values. His resignation in protest is perfectly consistent with his oath to defend the Constitution from ALL enemies, both foreign and domestic.

I hope others join him. Indeed, I would like to see high level resignations of the CIA for this and of career members of the Justice Department. If I met Lt. Cmdr. Williams, I would shake his hand. Honor and integrity are in short supply in this age of fear mongering: When found it should be honored.

Vermont Activists Plan Attempt to Arrest Bush/Cheney

Some bits of news are just so fun! O.K., this attempt by Constitution-loving activists in Brattleboro, VT has ZERO chance of working. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be tried all over the nation. Sometimes actions which do not work in the short-term result in longstanding changes for the better. The Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (a civil rights coalition) failed utterly in their attempt to seat a mixed race alternative slate of delegates at the 1964 Democratic National Convention. But the drama of racist injustice was aired on national TV, including the compelling testimony of former sharecropper-turned-activist Fannie Lou Hamer before the rules committee. The immediate result was a resounding defeat (and the exposure of the way even "liberal" politicians like LBJ and Hubert Humphrey cared more about political fallout to their careers than they did for justice--old story). But this changed forever the way that primaries and delegates were selected to either national political party--and was a major factor in getting the 1965 Voting Rights Act passed.

So, likewise, I do not think that the Brattleboro attempt to instruct their Town Council and police to arrest Bush & Cheney when next they visit and then to deport them to one of the European countries preparing to indict them on violations of international law before the International Criminal Court has any chance of actually resulting in said arrest and extradition. Not even if Brattleboro's hopes are realized that other liberal towns and cities, etc. across the nation try the same thing. I am even skeptical that such moves will finally force this Congress to hold impeachment hearings for these two villains--despite overwhelming evidence of their committing multiple "high crimes and misdemeanors." The Democratic leadership (Pelosi and Reid) is more afraid of political backlash than of shredding the Constitution, so they plan on just running out the clock on the Bush/Cheney admin., no matter how damage continues to be done to the rule of law, to human and civil rights, etc.

But maybe, just maybe, such actions multiplied across the nation could convince the mainstream media and Congress that the people really do care about the Constitution. Maybe Congress will reverse the abominable Military Commissions Act of 2006 (which suspended Habeas Corpus) this year. Maybe they will again filibuster in Feb. immunity for telecommunications firms that help the government illegally wiretap us. Maybe, just maybe, the next president and Congress will keep their word about restoring the Constitution, instead of wimping out like Pelosi and Reid have done. Who knows? Maybe the next president will even say to the next Attorney General, "Hey, just because Bush and Cheney have left office doesn't mean they are beyond the reach of the law. Investigate all those items that have been pending, appoint a special prosecutor, convene a grand jury, and let's see if we can't get some jail time for these Worse-Than-Watergate perps!"

Mind you, I am not holding my breath. But as I look to a new year, hope springs eternal--especially in the light of stubborn Vermonters who put the Constitution above "pragmatic realism." Way to go, Brattleboro. Whose for introducing a similar measure to the Louisville Metro Council?

Top 10 Iraq Myths of 2007

That's the title of this excellent article by Juan Cole in "Informed Comment," the Middle East blog of the Global Americana Institute. I'll leave you to read the details, but I'll list the myths in brief;

10. The U.S. public no longer cares enough about Iraq for it to be a major issue in the '08 elections. Any candidate who thinks that is toast.

9. There have been steps toward political and religious reconciliation in Iraq in '07.

8. The U.S. troop surge stopped an ongoing civil war in Iraq.

7. Iran was supplying roadside bombs to a terror group in Iraq.

6. The U.S. overthrow of Saddam and occupation of Iraq has increased the freedoms for Iraqi women.

5. Progress has been made by the Iraqi government in meeting the "benchmarks" that Bushco set for the (long off, eventual) removal of U.S. troops from the occupation.

4. The Sunni Arab "Awakening Councils" on the U.S. payroll are reconciling with the Shi'ite dominated Iraq government and both are taking on al-Qaeda-in-Iraq together.

3. The Iraqi north is relatively quiet and is enjoying stability and economic growth.

2. Iraq has been "calm" in the fall of 2007 and the Iraqi public, despite grumbling, is not eager to see U.S. troops depart.

1. Reductions in Iraqi violence are directly attributable to the U.S. surge. (Also known as the myth of "Gen. Petraeus is a military genius!")

As one commenter on the article noted, however, the biggest myth remaining in parts of the U.S. public is the myth (deliberately fostered by Bushco and, now, his would-be successors in the GOP presidential race) that Iraq attacked us on 9/11. (Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi and Osama bin Laden himself is of the Saudi royal family. There have been NO, absolutely zero, plans to attack Saudi Arabia--or even to speak to it harshly about the way it foments Wahabi extremism.) No doubt there are still those who believe that Iraq had WMDs and was an immanent threat to the U.S., too. Sigh.

Campaign Quarter Ends 31 December

Now is the time to give a donation to Andrew Horne for the U.S. Senate! Despite our strained finances (a major piece of furniture broke that we need to replace soon!), I plan to ask my wife/bookkeeper if we can't send $25. All of you do the same--or more if you aren't dealing with unexpected expenses. Also, that is the deadline for contributing to your favorite Democratic presidential candidate (among the possible winners, I'm still undecided between Obama and Edwards; I contribute to Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) in hopes that he can push the platform in a more progressive direction--perhaps getting the nominee to adopt truly universal, single-payer, not-for-profit healthcare (Medicare for everyone) or maybe getting the nominee to support his excellent Department of Peace idea). It's also the deadline for contributing to charities (I listed some of ours in an earlier post) and getting to deduct it on your taxes this April!

So donate, already--beginning with the Horne campaign. We will not Ditch Mitch "the Obstructor" McConnell, with all his millions, unless ordinary people donate to the Horne campaign. (Of course, if some wealthy progressives like the Bingham family, the Gheens family, the Paul Patton family, etc., want to contribute and fundraise for Andrew, I'm sure he'd appreciate that, too! But we can't wait for wealthy progressives--It's up to us, folks!

Why Progressive Patriots Are Angry

David Michael Green, who teaches political science at Hofstra University, has written an article about why we progressives are so angry at what is being done in our names by our country. I could have written it myself. Ever since early 2002, I have felt such outrage--only to be asked why. Read Green's answer. As the Quakers say, "This Friend speaks my mind."

Bhutto's death and U.S. Presidential Candidates

This morning's Washington Post has a great editorial about the undeniable fact that Benazir Bhutto's assassination, tragic in itself, presented the '08 presidential candidates with a test: Faced with a genuine crisis in foreign policy, could they cogently and clearly. The Post gives the highest mark to John Edwards (D-NC), saying he passed with flying colors: Managing to get Pres. Pervez Musharraf on on the phone Thursday (quite a feat for a one-term senator not well known on the global stage) and to deliver a strong message: continue on the path back to a democracy (unlike Bush, Edwards isn't stupid enough to think Pakistan currently has a democracy!) and allow international investigators to investigate Ms. Bhutto's death. (If they clear Musharraf's admin., they will have far more credibility than if Musharraf handles things "in house.")

The Post also gave high marks on this test to Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and John McCain (R-AZ). (They failed to mention that Clinton echoed Edwards' call for international investigators by the end of Friday--without mentioning that this idea wasn't original with her.) The post didn't mention "2nd tier" candidates Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Joe Biden (D-DE), both of whom have decades of foreign policy experience, both of whom have warned for years that Pakistan was farmore dangerous and unstable than Iran, and who gave great responses to the crisis.

The Post rightly flunks fmr. Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) who didn't know that Musharraf had lifted martial law 2 weeks ago and who then thought that we ought to guard our borders against a flood of Pakistani refugees. (AIEE--Help! More brown people with a strange religion are coming! OH, NO!!) Also, Huckabee thought that Afghanistan was on the Eastern border with Pakistan (no, Mike, that's India!) and not the Western border! Sheesh! I hope all Americans agree that 8 years with a president who is abysmally ignorant of world affairs (or even geography!!) is enough!

Giuliani and Romney merely saw the assassination as confirming their view that we aren't fighting terrorism in all its form, but Muslims and "jihadists." But the Post reserved its worst grade for Obama's attempt to link Bhutto's assassination with Hillary Clinton's vote to authorize the war/occupation of Iraq. It was a very weird response and, I have to say, has shaken some of my enthusiasm for Obama, though I still prefer him to Hillary. Maybe if he became John Edwards' VP, he would gain enough foreign policy experience for the White House--or maybe he has it now and just didn't realize that a crisis is NOT simply another opportunity for a low blow in a campaign--and this, from someone who wants a kinder, gentler politics, too!

Krugman to Progressives: To Arms!

Too many blog updates for one day, I think. This one's the last. Slate has an excellent editorial by Princeton economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman called, "Progressives: To Arms!" It is worth reading: Urges Democrats to seek to be more than "anti-Bush," but to roll back the forces which brought Bush to power. It also had a nice distinction between liberals and progressives: one is about values and the other about actions. "If you think everyone should have universal healthcare, you are a liberal. If you are working to bring about universal healthcare, you are a progressive."

I like that. I also think progressives (in which camp, I pitch my tent) are more focused on racial and economic justice, equality of the sexes (and sexual orientation), environmental protection, and a foreign policy guided by a commitment to democracy, human rights, and international law. Liberals care about such matters, but are more focused on abortion rights, civil liberties construed in a very individualistic fashion (tolerance and license), and lifestyle issues. Progressives may or may not care about such matters, but their heart and soul goes into the fight for social justice for ordinary people, especially economic social justice. A Clintonian liberal can proclaim "welfare state government is over," but a Wellstone-type progressive celebrates and defends the gains of the New Deal and Great Society and wants to take them further!

Read the Krugman article--then roll up your sleeves for the struggle.

Hollywood Revisionism: Charlie Wilson's War

AlterNet has an excellent review of Charlie Wilson's War which points out many of the big lies it promotes about the U.S. actions in Afghanistan in the '80s. Among the many sins of omission is any mention of the way the C.I.A. helped create the Taliban and the fighters which became al Qaeda. Thus, this movie fails to show how blowback from the CIA's actions in Afghanistan led to the attacks on 9/11. Without that link we fail to learn the lessons from American foreign policy disasters.

Bush to Veto Troop Funds?

Every time I start to get the idea that I understand how W "thinks," he does something that's really odd, even for him. This one is just bizarre. After bullying the Democrats into giving him more billions for the Iraq war--without a timeline for withdrawal or any other strings--Bush is now threatening to veto the bill. Why? Because, despite the fact that foreign governments are usually immune to lawsuits in U.S. Courts, the Iraqi government is afraid of just that--and thinks an obscure provision of the budget will allow such lawsuits.

Now, don't get me wrong. I think this could be good news--but that's because I have urged Congress to refuse to fund the occupation--forcing a withdrawal. (If Bush vetoes funding with deadlines, keep giving him the same thing. Vetoes do not produce funds. If he runs out of money, he'll be forced to withdraw--and the military itself and the GOP party bosses will make him use what money is left to protect the troops during withdrawal. Grow some spines, Dems. Support the troops by forcing their return home.) But for Bush to veto a bill that seemed to give him everything he asked for is just---odd. W can't seem to take yes for an answer. Weird.

C-J Calls McConnell "The Obstructor."

Did everyone notice that the Louisville Courier-Journal today called Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) "The Obstructor." They didn't mean it as a compliment. Since I have been referring to McConnell as "Obstructionist-in-Chief" almost since he was elected Senate Minority Leader, I feel some vindication that others share this view. The C-J's editorial lists only a few of the many matters that McConnell has stalled or blocked in the Senate--to the detriment of the national common good. It does a nice job of highlighting McConnell's hypocrisy--since when the GOP was in the majority, they threatened to take away the filibuster right of Senate minorities if the Dems used them to block some of Bush's more outrageous appointments. (Yes, this is how we ended up with Chief Justice Roberts on the Supreme Court!) From the "nuclear option" of removing the filibuster to a record year of obstructionism. That's our Mitch!

If this sickens you as much as me, then go to Andrew Horne's campaign and donate some money, and volunteer to help the campaign--our best chance in years to Ditch Mitch and elect a Senator that remembers what public service is all about.

2007: From MoveOn's P.O.V.

Since I belong to MoveOn & participated in some of these events, I am happy to share this video and to suggest that if you like what you see, make an end-of-year contribution here. Other progressive organizations are closer to my heart, but MoveOn was the first such to really harness the power of the world wide web, making it an essential citizens' action group for a postmodern political era. If you aren't a member, join up. We could use you in the work in 2008.

My Favorite Books on Politics in 2007

Considering the reading scores for public schools in Kentucky (and, despite their claims to the contrary, the home schooled aren't noticeably better on average), some might be surprised that a Kentucky-based blog on politics will promote reading, and, especially, the reading of books. Strange or not, it is true. Maybe it's the fact that I have an earned Ph.D. Chalk it up to academic elitism if you want to, but although I think all the new media have great opportunities (and some dangers, as with all media), and I promote their use in classes, business, etc., I still think that books (as well as newspapers and serious journals--as opposed to endless photo magazines of cars, celebrities, etc.) are important. Widespread readership of books, papers, and journals is vital to the health of a living democracy and the decline in readership is something we should note with some anxiety--not outright fear (there's enough promotion of that, these days), but enough internal discomfort to try and rectify the situation. (The poster boy for this is, of course, Pres. George W. Bush, who does not like to read; brags about not reading newspapers--preferring his aides to give him a digest of the news with a personal "spin;" who has very little curiosity about the world; and insists that all memos, reports, briefings, etc. fit on one page of talking points! Whatever criticisms one could make of Carter and Clinton, our last 2 Democratic presidents--and there are legitimate criticisms of both--at least they read voraciously and spent a great deal of time trying to understand the world and their jobs. A president need not be an intellectual, but at a minimum we should insist that our presidents always be intellectually curious and attempting to keep well-informed--including by regular reading of newspapers, journals, and BOOKS.)

Since my perspective and that promoted by this blog is "left of center" (in U.S. terms, which is still more conservative than much of the rest of the world), readers can expect that I will especially highlight books, papers, journals (and blogs, etc.) with center to left perspectives, because I want those to become well known. But I emphatically do NOT believe that one should only read from that perspective. There is far too much reading, speaking, and thinking only within "bubbles" or "zones of comfort" in this society already. One should always know the arguments and perspectives of one's adversaries--and even where they may be right on some matters. The world is far too complex to think only one's own party or view has all the answers. But let's start with my favorite political books in 2007--which will be center-left.

• Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches, by John W. Dean (Viking, 2007). This work is all the more amazing because it is written by a former conservative Republican lawyer (who still calls himself a Goldwater conservative) who served as Nixon's White House Chief Counsel! Now a registered independent, Dean broke with the Republican party after watching it break the processes of government. This work will serve as a civics review for those who have forgotten (or never learned in high school) how the Framers designed the U.S. federal government to work--and it details the ways in which modern Republicanism (1968 forward, but especially beginning with the Reagan presidency in 1981) has warped and even broken each branch of the government and eroded the checks and balances that are essential to the system. So, especially when all 3 branches of government were in Republican control, the presidency and executive branch became far more powerful than the Framers intended, the Congress ceased all oversight and became a rubber stamp, and the judicial branch lost much of its independence, bowing to "Executive privilege." My only problem with this book is Dean's simplistic cure: As this year has shown, simply electing Democrats until balance is restored won't work. We need progressive Democrats and Independents with backbone, we need engaged and active citizens, a free and diverse media peforming vigorous watchdog responsibilities, and we need some electoral structural reforms that will give more power to the people, curb the power of money in politics, and help third parties give real options to voters without simply playing a "spoiler" role that allows the worst candidate to win. But if Dean's solution is simplistic, his analysis is vital.
• The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (Metropolitan Books, 2007) by Naomi Klein. The author is an award winning Canadian journalist who also has degrees in economics. Here she shows how the Right, following advice from the late Milton Friedman, have used the shock of disasters (wars, natural disasters, attacks, coups, etc.) to forcibly change economic structures: including radical privatization of public concerns and reaping enormous profits for big corporations at the expense of the victims of the tragedy. She wants us to see the pattern all over the world so that we will recognize it when the next disaster strikes and be able to resist successfully.
• Truth and Consequences: Special Comments on the Bush Administration's War on American Values (Random House, 2007) by Keith Olbermann. This one is a little more light hearted. It is a collection of journalist Keith Olbermann's "special comments" since August 2006. I tell even conservatives to read or listen to Olbermann--because even if you disagree, you get to see brilliant writing and eloquent rhetoric delivered with oratorical power that is almost unknown anymore. That rhetorical power itself lifts the level of discourse above the currently low level to which it has sunk (across the spectrum) in the U.S. Stretch your vocabulary, get history lessons, and read a contemporary example of the political jeremiad--something nearly extinct before Olbermann revived it. Along the way, remember the values for which this nation is supposed to stand.
• Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House (Simon & Schuster, 2007) by Valerie Plame Wilson. The author is the former undercover CIA agent whose cover and identity were deliberately leaked to rightwing columnist Robert Novak (probably illegally and definitely putting numerous lives at risk). This was done in retaliation for the way Plame's husband, former career ambassador Joe Wilson, exposed one of the lies behind the Bush administration's case for invading Iraq. Plame is not a brilliant writer, not even as good as her husband, whose memoir, The Politics of Truth makes very exciting reading. And the way the CIA "redacted" (blacked out) numerous portions of the book (even though everything Plame was relating was supposed to be declassified already), hurts even more. But it is still very important to see "Plame-gate" from Plame's own perspective. The Right has continued to portray her as a bubble head (because she's a gorgeous blonde?) who was a "glorified secretary" at the CIA, but this is not true. Plame was deep cover and worked on countering nuclear proliferation, especially in the Middle East. Outing her probably set back efforts to keep nuclear weapons technology from many very deadly nations and groups. Nice job, Bushies.
• Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army (Nation Books, 2007) by Jeremy Scahill. One of the scariest things I have read in years. Since Blackwater is a sympton rather than the entire disease, however, I suggest reading this with P.W. Singer's Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry (Cornell University Press, 2007) and/or Robert Young Pelton's Licensed to Kill: Hired Guns in the War on Terror (Crown Books, 2006) which has just been reprinted in paperback by Three Rivers Press, 2007. Together these works add up to a scary picture of radically privatized military forces, mercenaries, as the wave of the future for neo-cons.
• The Conscience of a Liberal (W.W. Norton, 2007) by the Princeton economist and New York Times columnist Paul W. Krugman. Using Barry Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative as anti-type (and the Goldwater volume launched the modern conservative movement in the U.S.), Krugman attempts to show how conservatism has hurt America and how a liberal perspective offers a way forward.
• Bill of Wrongs: The Executive Branch's Assault on America's Fundamental Rights (Random House, 2007) begun by the late Texas liberal columnist Molly Ivins and finished by her friend and sometime co-author, Lou DuBose when Molly finally succumbed to cancer. Ivins' writings always combined a wonderful sense of humor with her profound belief in America and scathing attacks on what she called the "sumbitches" who try to take it away. Texas doesn't produce many liberals (Alas! Neither does Kentucky!), but those it does, like Ivins, have style and backbone and humor--something liberals in the Northeast of this fair nation could use.
• Thumpin' It: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in Today's Presidential Politics (Westminster/John Knox Press, 2007) by Jacques Berlinerblau. The author is a Jewish biblical scholar and also a Georgetown University professor in political science. This is a must read book--whether or not you are religious and no matter your political orientation.

Well, gentle readers, what have missed this year that's important?

Pakistan's Bhutto Assassinated

Apparently, she really scared someone. Whether the suicide bomber who killed former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto (and at least 20 others) today was sent by the Islamist extremists, Taliban and al-Qaeda supporters, or by supporters of President Pervez Musharraf (afraid that, even with conditions stacked against her, she might actually defeat him in the upcoming election) or just by someone who thought she was stepping too far away from "a woman's place," it is clear that Bhutto frightened someone enough to eliminate her.

My heart and prayers go out to her family, but also to the people of Pakistan who have longed to a return to democratic rule. I do not know enough about Bhutto and her policies when she was PM, or enough about all of the political landscape of Pakistan, to know if she would have made the best president or not, although as a firm democrat, I naturally support alternatives to Musharaff. But I am an outsider and should have no say in who gets to be president there or not. But I am angry and saddened that Pakistanis now won't get to decide for themselves. The violence which killed Ms. Bhutto and 20 bystanders was also violence to the whole of Pakistani society, forcefully removing from Pakistanis the opposition leader who had the most chance of defeating Musharraf--even after the State of Emergency gave him a chance to rig the field in his favor.

I am also angry at U.S. citizens: No, none of us killed Bhutto and the others. But the voter apathy of so many in this country dishonors the sacrifices like those paid by Bhutto and her followers. Around the world, people are willing to risk death for democracy, to stand in long lines for hours for in order to vote. Yet less than half of eligible citizens in the U.S. are even registered to vote--and among the young (18-25), this percentage is even lower. When elections are stolen elsewhere, the people march into the streets and demand recounts or commit nonviolent, people power, revolutions. When elections are stolen here, we shrug.
When candidates debate issues, we look for a ballgame or a "reality TV" show to watch.

Democracy requires an active citizenship: registering to vote, voting, coming to city council meetings, keeping up with the issues, volunteering for and contributing to campaigns, joining civic watchdog groups, writing letters to the editors of local papers, etc. Sometimes it requires risk (our society regularly extols the valor of our military members for defending such rights--even when a particular conflict may have nothing to do with defending our democracy or anothers--but then we cheapen their sacrifice by not being active citizens!) and struggle. Sometimes there are victims: not only around the world, but here at home (think of the martyrs of the Civil Rights movement, for instance). But nothing worth having is free. Those struggling for democracy in Pakistan will continue after Ms. Bhutto's funeral--even if they are defeated in the upcoming election. I grieve for them, but I do not worry about their longterm future, because they are determined to live free. I do worry about our future: I worry that we will continue to let the rule of law be trampled, the Constitution spat upon by those sworn to uphold it, torture and domestic spying, the elimination of Habeas corpus, indefinite detentions, court packings--and all the rest continue, rather than work and bleed and march to end it.

One of my favorite acoustic, alternative, music groups, "Down to Earth," sing "The Heart is a Muscle the Size of Your Fist." It's not about violence, but about social struggle: union organizing, community organizing, marching together, working together--and the role of anger in the work of social love, including the incredible line, "You can be loving and still be PISSED!" We need, they sing, "A lot more love, a lot more heat--a lot more people in the streets!" The chorus speaks to a way to honor Ms. Bhutto and all the fallen heroes and heroines of democratic struggles for justice:

Keep on loving; Keep on fighting!
Stick together and we just might win!
Shout Freedom's name to the heavens above--
And live each day with a fiercer love!

In solidarity with all the global struggles for justice and peace.

P.S. Bluegrass Roots has a good post on McConnell's hypocrisy over Bhutto's death. Now that Fletcher and Northup are gone, McConnell has to be Kentucky's biggest remaining embarrassment.

End of Year Contributions

Many people choose to contribute money to good causes at the end of the year, especially those causes which are tax deductible. Our house doesn't work that way. We give throughout the year. But, here is my list of 20 causes to which I think you should consider giving--now, and throughout 2008.

Although not tax deductible, consider contributing to the campaigns of progressive political candidates. Until we can get publicly financed campaign laws, campaigns will cost money. If ordinary people do not contribute in small amounts, candidates will have to raise money from big-monied special interests. If you really want to curb the power of lobbies and money in government, you'll have to give some money now to progressive, grassroots campaigns. Here in Kentucky, I hope you'll think first of Andrew Horne's campaign for the U.S. Senate. Contribute as well to the reelection effort of Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY). When a national political office changes parties (e.g., the 3rd District of Kentucky's change from Anne Northup (R-KY) and the GOP to Yarmuth (D-KY) ), it is most vulnerable to changing back to the previous party with the freshman office holder's first reelection campaign. Yarmuth has been voted an outstanding new member and not only the 3rd District, but all of Kentucky can be proud of the work he has done these two years. So, give him some $, to help him keep his seat!

Outside of Kentucky, I hope you contribute to progressive candidates like Rick Noriega (D-TX), Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer (D-MN) (I know that celebrity Al Franken (D-MN) is the DNC favorite for the MN primary--and all the MN Democrats running are excellent folks--but I honestly think Nelson-Pallmeyer would make the best Senator.), Andrew Rice (D-OK), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Vivien Figures (D-AL) (who will need all the help she can get!), Rocky Caldero (D-AK), Rand Knight (D-GA), Larry LaRocco (D-ID), or Tom Allen (D-ME)--each of whom is running a grassroots Senate campaign against large odds and well-funded opponents.

I am not endorsing a particular presidential candidate (partly because I expect the nominee to be chosen by the time Kentucky's May primary rolls around), but with the Iowa caucuses a week away and the New Hampshire primary only 5 days later, the candidate of your choice could use money right now for last minute commercials, etc. I have contributed to the campaign of Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) because his values and positions are closes to my own. I don't expect him to have much chance to win the nomination or the presidency, but if he can garner enough delegates, he might be able to seriously influence the 2008 Democratic platform. That's my hope and I find it worth the occasional $10 or $20 I have to send him. I split my other presidential campaign contributions between fmr. Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), both of whom I like for different reasons--and either of whom I think would make a good president.

If you want healthy, fair, free elections and a well-informed electorate, consider the good folks at Project Vote Smart.

If you are a progressive, you should really have your long-distance carrier as Working Assets and your mobile phone with Credo, a Working Assets subsidiary. This company was founded (1985) with the purpose of using some of its profits each year to fundraise for progressive causes: human rights and civil liberties, the environment, women's rights, the environment, etc. They have given away over $50 million to date and their customers get to help pick the organizations receiving the money. Change over today.

I contribute to the work of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture. It will take making this a religious, spiritual, and moral issue to reverse the acceptance which torture has gained in the U.S. since 9/11--partly because of Busch & Co.'s actions and propaganda (now echoed by ALL of the GOP presidential candidates except for John McCain and longshot libertarian Ron Paul0, but also because of the propaganda of such shows as 24, and The Unit. Still, if you are not person of any particular faith, and still want to contribute to work being done to outlaw torture (again) in this country, consider The Constitution Project, The Center for Constitutional Rights, or the No 2 Torture Campaign.

For human rights broadly construed, I contribute to the work of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. They have similar mandates, but use different methods in ways that complement each other.

Combatting hunger and poverty takes a combination of approaches. I recommend Bread for the World, Habitat for Humanity, Oxfam, and, working for fair trade rather than free trade, Equal Exchange. I also always make the work of the Children's Defense Fund a priority. These are the people who REALLY work to leave no child behind!

For U.S. civil liberties concerns, I contribute to the work of the American Civil Liberties Union. Seldom in our history has the ACLU's work been more necessary. If you aren't a member, join today. If we ever get our Constitution back, much of the work will have been done by attorneys working for the ACLU.

On environmental matters, I don't waste my money on the well-healed, but very cautious Sierra Club, nor the publicity-seeking Greenpeace. I look for fighters, but smart fighters. For my money, there are 3 eco-groups that do incredible service: The Natural Resources Defense Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Environmental Defense.

In terms of grassroots peacemaking, I usually contribute to faith-based efforts such as the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, and Christian Peacemaker Teams. But for secular efforts, I have 2 recommendations of exceptional note: Peace Action and the War Resisters' League. Since I come from a military family and was myself in the army before becoming a conscientious objector, I also have a soft spot for wonderful folks at Veterans for Peace. And since they supplied me with a free lawyer for my CO discharge (when they were known as the National Interreligious Service Board for Conscientious Objectors), I also can never fail to mention the great folks at the Center for Conscience and War.

This hardly exhausts the list of groups worthy to receive your money--not by a long shot. But these are a few of the groups who get my money. Feel free to add your own candidates and include web addresses.

Let us pray (and WORK) for a more just, peaceful, and sustainable new year.

Tell Schumer: Back Horne! Kentuckians Don't Want Lunsford!

Rumor has it that instead of backing Andrew Horne (D-KY) in his effort to win the U.S. Senate from Obstructionist in Chief Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Sen. Charles Schumer (D-KY)and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee are courting Bruce Lunsford (D-KY), former Lt. Governor and failed 2007 gubanatorial candidate to run, instead. Now, look. I understand that the DSCC's job is to get as many Democrats elected to the U.S. Senate as possible. So, Schumer and the DSCC are ALWAYS going to look for the person they think has the best chances of winning, period. They are counting on Lunsford's higher name recognition to make him a better candidate against McConnell than Horne. (For this reason, Horne himself waited until some other, more well known, potential candidates, especially State Auditor Crit Luallen, declined to run for the Senate, before announcing his candidacy.)

Well, excuse me, but Schumer and the DSCC should butt out! Lunsford is NOT a great candidate. That's why he lost the gubanatorial primary in '07 to Steve Beshear (D-KY), who is our newly elected governor. Further, Lunsford may be officially a Democrat, but actually leans Republican. He has contributed mightily to Republican campaigns and causes--and not very much to Democratic ones. The same reasons that the Bluegrass Report showed that Lunsford would have been a poor Governor for Kentucky would also make him a poor U.S. Senator--for Kentucky or the nation. By contrast, Horne, whom the Louisville Courier-Journal admits would be a serious opponent for McConnell, has already won some significant endorsements in the brief time he has been running: Endorsements from VoteVets.org, the progressive organization of military veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan who work to end the war/occupation, to change the direction of our foreign policy, and get better treatment for vets and their families, from Change for Kentucky, the Kentucky branch of Democracy for America show that Horne's grassroots campaign is attracting the attention of progressives--the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" as the late Paul Wellstone used to say. I expect future endorsements by labor unions, health care advocates, government reform groups, media reform groups, and such progressive political action groups as MoveOn.org and Progressive Democrats of America. Horne is going to win the nomination and the Senate, but it would be nice to have the DSCC on his side, rather than to have to fight it--and a potentially divisive Spring primary that would only work to McConnell's advantage.

Call Sen. Schumer's office ( 202-224-6542) and/or email him and say that, if the rumors are true, the DSCC should immediately cease courting Bruce Lunsford and, instead, back a progressive Democratic fighter like Andrew Horne. If we Kentucky Democrats flood his office with emails and calls, I think Sen. Schumer will get the idea and realize the error of his ways.

Why Hillary Seems Unlikely to Win Iowa

The Iowa Caucuses, the first step in the election of U.S. presidents, are only 2 weeks away. Polls for the Democratic Caucuses show a 3-way tie between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), Barack Obama (D-IL), and fmr. Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) with others trailing badly. Theoretically, any of the top 3 candidates has a real shot at coming in first place in the Caucuses and, thus, clearing the first major hurdle toward winning the Democratic nomination and, hopefully, the White House. But I think this 3-way tie makes it unlikely that Sen. Clinton will win--because of a uniquely Iowan hurdle. Recall how the Caucuses work by watching the video below (put out by the Edwards' campaign, but very accurate about the process):



Now, Hillary has some passionate champions as well as passionate (even vicious) critics, but I can't see that very many think of her as their clear second choice. Caucus-goers whose candidates fail to get the required percentage (usually 15%) must either stay with the undecideds or join a viable group. Now, I can't see the kooky Mike Gravel (D-AK) getting a viable percentage in many precincts. I doubt that Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) or Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) will get 15% in most precincts. Even Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who are polling above the other so-called "second tier" candidates will probably not have viable numbers in every precinct. And the stakes are simply too high in '08 for many people to remain undecided. Pressure will be on for people to caucus for a viable candidate. So, of the "second-tier" candidates, I can see some Biden supporters and some Dodd supporters going with Clinton, but not a lot. I can't see Gravel, Richardson or, especially, Kucinich supporters going with Hillary at all. So, whenever one of those candidates has a precinct in which their caucus fails to be viable, their supporters will vote for a "second choice"--and I expect Edwards and Obama to split most of those "second choice" votes.

For this reason, if the race is really as close as the polls suggest, I think it unlikely for Clinton to come in first in Iowa--and she may even come in third. Whether Obama or Edwards comes in first depends on so many factors that I can't calculate them all: Which issues are given what weight; whether voters prefer a fighter (Edwards) or a healer (Obama), etc.

Now, if I am right, can Hillary recover? Sure--and her best chance is in the New Hampshire primary just 5 days later, where voters just pick a candidate without 2nd choices. She's still ahead there, although Obama is close behind. Only 2 things seem abundantly clear at this point: A Democratic candidate will have to win at least one of the 3 early state primaries/caucuses (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina) to have a real chance at the nomination, and if any of the frontrunners comes in 3rd place in all three races, they probably cannot continue much longer after that.

Edwards absolutely MUST win Iowa, it seems to me, to have either the momentum or the fundraising ability to go further. His chances of winning in New Hampshire seems to hinge on gaining the votes of large numbers of Independent voters (who can choose whether to vote in the Republican or Democratic primary in NH) and no poll gives much indication of how they will vote. He's farther behind in SC, but his ground game is good and his SC followers are passionate. IF he wins Iowa and at least makes a strong showing in NH, he might have time to surge into the lead in SC--and a key part of his campaign is his argument that he is more electable in "red" Southern states. But without a win in Iowa, I think Edwards will be out of the race by February.

Obama needs either a clear win or a strong second place showing in Iowa. Much further back and he will lose both financial support and momentum. If he wins or comes in a very close second in Iowa, I think he can beat Hillary in New Hampshire and in South Carolina (the 2 are tied in SC). He probably needs a clear win in either Iowa or NH to beat Hillary in SC--because he has to convince older African-Americans in the South that "white people will vote for him" before they will take a chance on him. (There are very few African-Americans in Iowa or New Hampshire, but they make up the majority of Democrats in South Carolina.)

Clinton would be hurt more by an Obama win in Iowa than by an Edwards win, or so her campaign thinks. This is because they are convinced they can stop Edwards in both NH and SC (whether or not they are right). But if Obama wins Iowa, particularly if he wins big, then Hillary must massively blitz New Hampshire and stop him cold. If Clinton loses both Iowa and New Hampshire, even if not by much, her campaign is in big trouble because it has banked so hard on her theme of "experience," and the media-generated expectation that she is an "inevitable" Democratic nominee that gave the first 2/3 of the campaign this year the air of an impending coronation rather than a democratic election!

What about that other early state--Nevada? Your guess, gentle readers, is as good as mine. Nevada has only become an early battleground in this election cycle--a result of the growth of Democrats in the West and Southwest, especially among Hispanics. Nevada is also a caucus state, but I don't know how to read it or who is ahead, etc. This one is easier to call for the GOP: Nevada will go for favorite son Sen. John McCain (R-NV). But my guess is that Nevada will be influenced by which candidates have momentum in IA, NH, and SC.

Incidentally, I expect most of the "second tier" Democratic candidates to drop out by Spring, but not Kucinich. Unless he runs completely out of money, I think that Dennis Kucinich will fight for every delegate he can get during the primaries and bring them to the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Why? Because although he cannot win, he might have more success in '08 than in '04 in getting more of his agenda into the Democratic platform. That would be a good thing--pushing whomever the nominee is into a much more progressive direction.

Which Electoral Races Are You Watching?

Swing State Project wants to know which political races (presidential, congressional, senate, gubanatorial) people in the U.S. are watching. Answering this on their site requires registration. I registered but still couldn't make it work. Maybe my more tech-savvy readers will have better luck. At any rate, other than the race for president, I am, of course, most closely following the Kentucky race for U.S. Senate--cheering on Andrew Horne (D-KY) in his efforts to help us Ditch Mitch! This one race has the potential to change things not only for the Commonwealth, but for the nation and the world. That's because McConnell is the Obstructionist-in-Chief for a Senate minority that (after threatening to abolish the filibuster when it was in the majority) has set the record for filibustering and other obstructions--half way through the 110th Congress!

I am following somewhat most of the Senate races, especially VA, NM, CO, OR, AK, ME, MN & NH--the states where we are most likely to see Democrats pickup open seats or unseat GOP incumbents--and LA, the only state where a Democratic incumbent is in serious trouble. But I have my eye on some races where progressive Democrats are underdogs, but could make some unexpected upsets--including TX(Rick Noriega), ID (the longer Larry Craig refuses to resign, the better Larry LaRocco's chances become), OK (Andrew Rice), NC (Kay Hagan).

After watching her disappointing year as Speaker of the House, I am also watching and hoping that Rep. Nancy Pelosi(D-CA) will face a primary challenge from a progressive candidate in her liberal San Francisco district.

Insurance Won't Pay; Girl Dies

This is exhibit A of everything wrong with the U.S. approach to healthcare. The family had health insurance, but the girl was denied a transplant (claiming it was "experimental") because of the cost of the operation. Under pressure from bad publicity, the insurance company changed it's mind and authorized the operation--but the girl died before it could be performed.

This is why plans to cover more people or even all citizens are band-aids. The only real solution is to make health care a right, and take profits out of the equation. We need a single-payer, not-for-profit healthcare system like every other industrial democracy. The only presidential candidate proposing such a system is Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). (See his healthcare plan here.) Obama's healthcare plan doesn't even cover everyone. The Edwards & Clinton health care plans (which are modeled after the Nixon plan), although Edwards seems to be trying to build to a single-payer system in steps. At least he knows that one cannot "negotiate" a good system with the HMOs and insurance companies--because, as this tragedy shows, they are the problem. They make money by denying claims and by covering only low-risk insurees, denying anything for preexisting conditions, etc.

There is more support among voters for a single-payer system because it is easier to understand, saves money from lack of redtape, and is the only plan that restores medicine to its rightful place and focus: the health of patients rather than the profits of Big Pharma, insurance companies, and Med Tech companies. We the people of this country must demand, not universal health coverage, but universal, not-for-profit healthCARE as a right. Medicine and healthcare should be distributed to those who need it--not by market means. Market-based distribution for medicine is an example of the rule of money outside its proper sphere--as obscene as prostitution (the distribution of sexual intimacy by market means), bribing the police or courts (the distribution of legal "justice" by market means), or simony (the distribution of clergy or political office by market means).

Healthcare workers: doctors, nurses, lab techs, etc., have a vocation, a calling--similar to a religious vocation. For profit healthcare systems distort this and turn healthcare workers into snake-oil vendors and quackery peddlers--preying on the poor. It is obscene and ought to outrage us.

Quality healthcare is a human right and it is high time U.S. citizens demand it!

Democrats Continue to Fund Iraq War

Despite huge opposition, the Democratic Congress has accomplished some good things in its first term in control. It raised the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, raised automotive fuel efficiency standards for the first time since 1975, and, despite having many key provisions stripped so that the president would sign it, created an energy law that BEGINS to address global warming. Though falling far short of what is needed, Congress did enact new ethics standards and attempted to limit the role of lobbyists.

These are all important accomplishments. But there is no sugarcoating the fact that the Democratic leadership has failed to do the one thing the voters in '06 put them in charge to do: End the Iraq War. Indeed, by continuing to blink in showdowns with the president and give more funding without firm timelines for withdrawal, the Democrats have now bought into Bush's war and enabled it to continue indefinitely. Why can't they simply allow Bush to veto spending bills with timelines and then let the lack of funds force the end of the war. Past congresses have defunded wars before when it was the only way to force recalcitrant Executive Branch's to end them. But today's Democrats are still afraid of the "they don't support the troops" label.

They have also failed to reverse the disastrous Military Commissions Act with its removal of
Habeas Corpus from detainees at the Gitmo Gulag. They have not closed that gulag down, nor ended torture--and, if not for the courage of Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), the Democratic leadership would have handed Bush everything he wanted to continue spying on innocent Americans--with immunity for collaborating communications corporations. They may yet force such a craven act through the Senate in January if citizens do not support Dodd in stopping them again.

It is abundantly clear that to effect fundamental change in this country, we must do more than elect Democrats. We need to elect progressive, committed politicians, it is true. But we must also have an active social movement of engaged citizens. Lyndon Baines Johnson became the president who signed the most important civil rights legislation in 20th C. U.S. history after pressure (positive and negative) from the nonviolent freedom movement. The rightwing Richard Nixon signed into law the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and other crucial environmental legislation because of a strong enironmental movement. Robert F. Kennedy moved and evolved from a Cold War fan of McCarthy, indifferent to civil rights and known mostly for his prosecutions of the Mafia, into a champion of the poor, of civil and human rights (at home and in South Africa), and an opponent of endless war because of a vital, engaged, U.S. citizenry that was organized and using grassroots energy to change the nation.

Change comes in this nation (and elsewhere) when we have an "insider and outsider" strategy: We work to elect strong, dynamic, progressives within the system and we organize outside the system to support those reformers--and to hold them and others accountable. Grassroots power without any insider support has a very hard time making progress--or even to keep from losing ground. But electing good insiders without grassroots support doesn't work either--they can't successfully take on the special interests and the vested powers (or keep from being seduced) without organized people power.

In 1968, with the assassinations of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (who was the most important leader of the nonviolent black freedom movement and was becoming a major leader in the anti-war movement, too) and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy (D-MA) on the eve of his movement to win the Democratic nomination and the White House, the movements for progressive change in America came to a halt. Since then we have been wandering in the wilderness for 40 years, as Jim Wallis and others have noticed. In 2008, we can begin to undo this and move forward again for human rights, for peacemaking, for the environment, for economic justice--for a better world for our children and grandchildren. That will take both electoral politics--working hard to elect committed change agents with progressive platforms--and organized grassroots social movements for change, too. It's not "top-down" change OR "bottom-up" change strategies that we need, but BOTH.

In 2008, we must declare that the 40 years of wilderness wanderings ushered in by the assassinations of King and Kennedy are over. It's time to enter a new era of promise for all peoples. Jim Wallis likes to say that electoral politics alone ends up simply changing one politician with his or her finger to the wind for another--the key is to change the direction of the wind. Let's blow up a hurricane of progressive change in '08.

Change for Kentucky Endorses Horne

Change for Kentucky, the Commonwealth's chapter of Democracy for America, has endorsed Andrew Horne in his bid to oust Obstructionist-in-Chief McConnell from his seat in the U.S. Senate. Congratulations to Horne for another early endorsement from a grassroots progressive organization. I expect such endorsements to continue as the Horne campaign builds momentum to replace the Obstructionist-in-Chief (who supports continued war, but not sufficient downtime for the troops; continues to help Bush block health care for children; equates money with speech; endorses torture, etc.) with a progressive voice for the common people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Fox Attacks: Edwards and Obama

Thanks to Bluegrass Roots for this video. I like both Obama and Edwards far more than I do anyone at Fox News (or "Fixed Noise" as Keith Olbermann likes to call them). I wonder if veteran journalist Mike Wallace of the venerable 60 Minutes at CBS is embarrassed by his son Chris Wallace's absolute prostitution of his journalistic integrity at Fox. I would be.

Maybe we'll see an Obama/Edwards or Edwards/Obama winning ticket. Would Bill O'Reilly have an apopleptic fit on the air? Wow--a wonderful new direction for the nation and the sheer entertainment of watching rightwing blowhards meltdown! Now, THAT would be a dream come true. And it could happen. Iowa is a 3 way tie right now and I think either Obama or Edwards will win it. I can't see Edwards winning New Hampshire unless a large number of independents vote for him, but Obama could easily springboard from Iowa through New Hampshire and into South Carolina. Edwards looks pretty far back in SC and I don't know if he has enough time for an Iowa win (and maybe a NH close second?) to turn that around. Edwards HAS to win Iowa, it seems to me and Obama needs to either win or come in a very close second and then MUST win New Hampshire.

Neither will think about being the other's running mate until after it's clear which one has a real chance of becoming president. But I think the 2 together would make an unbeatable combination. As a child of the civil rights revolution, I'd be overjoyed at seeing Obama in the Oval Office, but the progressive in me likes Edwards' policies better.

Candidates' Faith & Values

First of all, I have to say that I agree with those who have complained that this presidential election cycle has talked more about religion than any other--almost as if we were electing a national pastor rather than a U.S. president. I say that not as a "secularist," but as a Christian with 2 theology degrees who has been a pastor, an academic theologian and philosopher, and an organizer for a faith-based peacemaking organization--and as the spouse of a Baptist minister.

There is nothing wrong with a candidate for elected office talking about her or his faith as part of explaining their motivations--or in answering concerns the public might have about how particular religious convictions might affect one's ability to govern: A Quaker or Mennonite candidate would have to answer concerns that they might not be able to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces; an Orthodox Jewish candidate might legitimately be asked whether they could fulfill their duties if an emergency happened on the Sabbath. More than this may threaten to violate the Constitution's ban in Article 6 on religious tests for public office.

And, contrary to some assertions, the intense focus on candidates' religious convictions this election cycle was started by the Democrats--seeking to counter the conservative myth that Democrats are hostile (or, at best, indifferent) to religion and to persons of deep religious conviction. That myth did need to be countered--and done so in a way that showed that one can have deep faith convictions and still be a strong defender of church-state separation and of religious liberty for all (including the liberty to have no religious convictions or to be atheistic or agnostic). So, for what it's worth, here is the link to a great series on the presidential candidates' faith and values done by the good folks at the Christian Science Monitor. (Whatever one thinks of the Church of Christ, Scientist, they certainly put out a first class newspaper!)

But although finding out about candidates' views as a means of understanding their motivations and their approach to vital issues of public policy (many of which really are moral issues) is legitimate, some overtones in this election cycle seem at least mean spirited, if not downright theocratic. Mitt Romney's speech on religion meant to reassure evangelicals concerned about Mormonism ended up sounding like a put down to people of other faiths or no particular faith. Mike Huckabee's billing of himself as a "Christian leader" combined with little digs about Romney's Mormonism ("Don't they believe Jesus and Satan are brothers?") are, at least, nasty and possibly indicate a lowering of the wall of church-state separation should he be elected. Then there are the constant conservative attacks on Hillary Clinton that refuse to believe her oft-repeated expressions of personal faith (as a United Methodist) or the smear campaign that claims Barack Obama is a "closet Muslim" and some form of Manchurian candidate! (If he were Muslim, that would not disqualify him for office. But he was raised in a secular household and, as he has often attested, is an adult convert to Christianity who is an active member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago--whose pastor, Jeremiah Wright, I have heard preach.)

The only redeeming note in this nasty mess is that, AT LEAST, we have come a long way since Gov. Al Smith (D-NY) lost his 1928 race for the White House because he was Catholic or since John F. Kennedy (D-MA) had to give a speech reassuring a gathering of Protestant ministers in Houston, TX in 1960 that he believed in church-state separation and religious liberty and that the pope would not rule the U.S. from afar! This year we have numerous Catholic candidates: 1 Republican (Rudy Guiliani (R-NY), and 4 Democrats (Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Sens. Joe Biden (D-DL) & Chris Dodd (D-CT), & Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) ). No one, thank God, has even brought up their faith as a possible obstacle to the White House.

In our increasingly pluralistic society, however, we need far more tolerance for others' faith--and to recognize that the ban on religious tests for public office serves the common good. Citizenship in this nation is not measured by which faith or how much faith one has. That point seems lost on many in this election cycle.

Victories and Setbacks

Well, today is full of news to celebrate--and news about set-backs. First the good news:

1. Congress passed and Pres. Bush actually signed a new energy bill today that includes the first increases in automotive fuel efficiency standards since 1975. The new law also promotes alternative fuels. In order to avoid a veto, the final version of this law lacked some features that was originally approved by the House: taxing oil companies and using the revenues for investment in clean energies: wind, solar, geothermic, and biomass. There is more to do, but we don't have to wait until a new president before finally doing something about oil consumption and the environment.
2. Both the courts and Congress are standing up to the Bush admin. on the torture tapes. Subpoenas are being issued to key administration figures. This cover up won't go away.
3. Movement is growing in the House Judiciary Committee to hold hearings that could yet lead to the impeachment of VP Dick Cheney--despite all attempts by Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) to bury this. Get involved in the effort.
4. Congress has voted to stengthen the Freedom of Information Act in a clear rebuke to the Bush administration's hyper-secrecy--which would have made the Nixon White House look transparent by comparison.
5. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) will drop out of the race for the GOP presidential nomination. That's a victory for Republicans, Democrats, and anyone who doesn't just love nativist screeds, immigrant-bashing, and utter xenophobia! Now, maybe the other GOP candidates won't feel compelled to "out Tancredo Tancredo" as Tancredo himself charged at one of the GOP debates. Now, if only Mike Gravel (D-AK) and Duncan Hunter (R-CA) would also begin thinning the packs. No wonder comedian Jon Stewart calls this race clusterf@#ck to the White House. :-)
6. And Congress has slashed funds to Burma: ending trade in gems, timber, and banking until the military government releases all political prisoners and allows free and fair elections.

Set-backs;

1. The Democrats have once more caved to Bush on funding for the war in Iraq. Another $70billion down the drain.
2. Bush vetoed a new version of S-CHIP, even though it responded to his previous criticisms. They will try to override his veto in January--and we citizens need to let all Representatives and Senators know that we want this S-CHIP expansion to pass.
3. Pundits are downplaying the war in Iraq as an election issue, now (just as they did in '04), but as FAIR shows, it's the media, not the voters who have lost interest now that the violence is less than last year.
4. Although the U.S. was stopped from completely de-railing the environmental meeting at Bali, it did delay any agreement on firm carbon caps for 2 years. We have to work hard to get firm--and deep--cuts in carbon emissions.

VoteVets Endorse Horne

As expected, VoteVets.org, a progressive veterans organization composed mostly of veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan who oppose the continued war and occupation, has endorsed Andrew Horne in his bid to replace Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the Obstructionist-in-Chief (aka, Sen. Minority Leader). (If you think that McConnell doesn't deserve the title "Obstructionist-in-Chief," you haven't seen this!) To celebrate that important endorsement, I am reposting Horne's announcement video, which was part of my introduction to this new blog.



Now hurry over to Horne's campaign site and pledge some money. If you live in Kentucky, volunteer for the campaign.

Quick Notes

• Hillary's Choice to Improve America's image is. . . Bubba and Bush I? Okay. I DO actually think Hillary's repeatedly announced strategy of rebuilding U.S. influence in the world by sending prominent, well-respected Americans on friendship tours beginning the day after the November elections is a good one. We have 8 years of damage to repair and this can be done without waiting until inauguration or passing new laws. But I thought she had in mind people like fmr. President Jimmy Carter (disliked by the U.S. Right and even some Democrats, but enjoying nearly universal respect globally), New Mexico Governor (and former UN Ambassador Bill Richardson), Andrew Young (Civil Rights legend, former U.S. Rep., former UN Ambassador under Carter, former mayor of Atlanta), former Senator and Ambassador Carol Mosley-Braun, retired Gen. Wes Clark. Heck, maybe even some socially-involved celebrities like Angelina Jolie or Oprah Winfrey, I don't know. But a tour by Bill Clinton and W's Daddy? To help America's image? And notice that Daddy didn't like being volunteered or the implication that he needs to help clean up after Junior. Bubba Bill shoots off his mouth again and Hillary must pay the price.
• As expected, FCC Chair and Bushie, Kevin Martin, defies Congress, the will of the people expressed in countless hearings, and everybody except big business and forces changes in FCC regs to allow EVEN MORE media consolidation. Prepare now, folks, for a huge fight to get Congress to force the FCC to give us our airwaves back.
• New evidence surfaces that Bush knew LAST WINTER that Iran no longer had an active nuclear weapons program. But he still keeps beating the drums of war.
• Iraq used to be one of those rare places in the Middle East where women could enjoy relatively high status: go to university, own their own businesses, etc. Now, women not conforming to strict fundamentalist views of Islam are regularly raped and killed. Way to spread democracy and human rights, W.
• The world powers gathered in Paris to pledge over $7 billion U.S. in economic aid to Palestine. The move was welcomed, of course, but will not help if the world does not also uses its muscle to end the Occupation. And how will aid get to Gaza, under complete Hamas control and Israeli shut-down? An Israeli airstrike on the radical Islamic Jihad in Gaza came just hours after this donor conference.
• The oceans are growing more acidic. We may lose the remaining living coral reefs, upsetting entire eco-systems.
• A Basra police chief says the departing British troops have not left behind stability but "murder and chaos." Yes, the British have done better in Iraq than the U.S.--that's just not saying all that much.

Iowa Caucus Primer

Ever wonder how the Iowa caucuses actually work? Well, the video below explains it nicely. Warning: The video is put out by the John Edwards campaign and, even if one is pro-Edwards, it's bias is rather over the top. If one supports another candidate, the Edwards slant is positively annoying, I'd guess. Also, it's pretty hokey and corny in presentation. The example precinct captains, "Joe," and "Jane" are both white, but Iowa is 95% white, so that's fairly accurate. But Jane is considerably younger than most precinct captains--a not so subtle attempt by the Edwards folks to get more younger voters to caucus and to go with their candidate. At any rate, the process is accurately portrayed. It demands a very active citizenry and works best with a very engaged and rather small population--and would never work with the larger states. But this is why candidates spend so much time in Iowa: voters there watch the news, not gameshows, are up on the issues in detail, and because radio and TV stations don't have much reach, are used to "retail-not-wholesale" campaigns in which small groups of people get to meet LOTS of candidates in person and talk with them. No other state in the union requires such individual effort as "first in the nation Iowa."

David v. Goliath in Texas & Kentucky

The Texas Observor has an excellent article on the David v. Goliath senate race of Rick Noriega (D-TX) vs. Sen. John "Corndog" Cornyn (R-TX). There are enough similarities between that race and Andrew Horne's challenge to Obstructionist-in-Chief Mitch McConnell (R-KY), that the Horne campaign and KY Democrats would do well to read the article. Noriega is the grandson of Mexican immigrants, a state legislator, and a National Guardsmen who worked his way from private to Lt. Col. and has been to both Afghanistan and Iraq. Horne is a retired Lt. Col in the Marines who served in Kuwait during Gulf War I and Iraq in the current invasion/occupation. Both men are facing pro-war chickenhawks who have never spent a day in uniform and who are receiving less than stellar approval ratings for the first time in their senate careers. Both are grassroots campaigns against big money incumbents.

Texas is, perhaps, a "redder," or more Republican state than Kentucky, although Texas Dems are hungry and if the Hispanic base is mobilized in large numbers, Cornyn's virulent anti-immigration policies could haunt him. But Cornyn is a relative newcomer to the Senate, whereas, McConnell is the powerful Senate Minority Leader (Obstructionist-in-Chief) and has a history of eating opponents for breakfast. Both campaigns will have to prove to the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee that they are strong enough for the DSCC to risk national money to help even the playing field. Kentucky is a smaller state than Texas and so statewide commercials will be less expensive for Horne than Noriega, but, again, Cornyn is not the powerhouse that McConnell is.

There are symbolic, psychological reasons for both campaigns to appeal to national Democratic donors: Texas is the home of George W. Bush and Cornyn is one of his cronies--aided into each office he's held by W's own campaign successes and even by personal advice from Bush guru Karl Rove. Taking out Cornyn, even in a year in which no one in the Bush family is on the ticket, would be an incredible coup: it would show the sinking the popularity of Bush even in his home state and the drag his low popularity is having on the entire GOP. A Noriega victory would reinforce Democratic outreach to Hispanics, especially in the Southwest where Democrats are growing with the increasing Latino population. It would bolster national Democratic stands on the war, immigration, and economic populism.

Likewise, the national party knows just how devastating it would be to the GOP if the powerful Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, would lose. Republicans flooded South Dakota with money in order to defeat the popular Tom Daschle (D-SD), then the Senate Minority Leader--knowing that Daschle's loss would be worth 3 other senators to Democrats. The DSCC would love to return the favor. Both Horne and Noriega would bring fresh blood to the national party. Both would reinforce DNC chief Howard Dean's "50 State Strategy" for regrowing and rejuvenating the Democratic Party--a strategy which has been working since 2004.

And both are military veterans against the Iraq war. Since 2006, Democrats have worked hard to recruit candidates who are anti-war veterans. This strategy has done several things: 1) It has begun to increase the number of U.S. Representatives and Senators with military experience--something once common, but increasingly rare since the end of the Vietnam War, the end of the draft, and the rise of the all-volunteer, professional military (which has often meant a "poverty draft." Today's military is disproportionally staffed by racial and ethnic minorities and, while those from wealthy families were always a minority, today their presence is even rarer). It is much easier for lawmakers to be militaristic when the results of such hawkishness are unlikely to affect them or their families personally. 2) Because this kind of recruitment has been a specifically Democratic strategy, more of the newly elected veterans are Democrats. And since these are veterans who oppose the continuation of the Iraq occupation, they are changing the perception that Democrats are "weak on defense," and that Democratic moves for diplomacy or peacemaking are signs of "defeatism," and a "blame America first" attitude. Those have been standard GOP talking points since the 1980s, but candidates like Noriega and Horne, facing "chickenhawks" like Cornyn and McConnell (chickenhawks who also have a record of voting against proper equipment and armor for the troops early in the war/occupation; voting against veterans' benefits; voting against combat and hazard pay and benefits for reservists being used for frontline troops in Afghanistan and Iraq; voting against Sen. Jim Webb (D-V)'s bill that would force longer homefront stays for rest, retraining, equip renewal, etc., before new deployments back in war zones) are making it harder for the GOP to win with those talking points. When a pacifist (or near-pacifist) like Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), or even a pacifist like myself with a military background 20+ years ago, but no combat experience (thank God!) tries to argue for diplomacy and peacemaking in a post-9/11 world--we have a hard time getting a hearing in many parts of the U.S. (although not as hard a time as 2001-2004!). But if combat veterans, especially veterans from the current mess, make those same points, they don't encounter the automatic mental defenses. They can get a hearing.

Noriega and Horne: Two Davids in red states taking on GOP Goliaths. But nobody really likes Goliath, anyway. Will Texans or Kentuckians join our Davids? Time will tell, but I hope so.

Courage and Hypocrisy Honors

Tonight's profile in political courage goes to: Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT)! Standing nearly alone (Senators Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), & Feingold (D-WI) stood with him), Chris Dodd effectively filibustered and blocked the collusion by Senate Republicans AND Democrats to cave-in to White House demands that the FISA Act (Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act) be amended to grant retroactive immunity from lawsuit or prosecution to communications companies that cooperated with illegal government spying on citizens' phone calls and emails without a warrant. The other Democratic senators who, like Dodd, are running for U.S. president, Sens. Clinton (D-NY), Obama (D-IL), and Biden (D-DL), verbally opposed this immunity, but ONLY Dodd flew back to Washington to prevent the vote. The House had already updated the FISA law without the retroactive immunity. So, this action kills this bill until January and it runs out in February. If activists and people who care about the Constitution can stand strong, in February this thing will lapse and go back to the original 1978 law--which is perfectly adequate for national security without eroding the right to privacy, presumption of innocence, due process, etc. Folks should send emails to Sen. Dodd thanking him for his courage and to Sens. Clinton, Obama, and Biden, taking them to task--and also to Sen. Majority Leader Reid for not standing up with Dodd and for the Constitution. Write letters to your local paper praising Dodd's actions, too. Dodd is too far down in the polls to become president, but I think he should try to take Reid's place as Sen. Majority Leader. We need a Senate Leader with backbone.

And now, for the political hypocrisy award: That goes to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). A few months ago (October?), at the confirmation hearings of Judge Mukasey as Attorney General, Graham said that it was okay that Mukasey didn't know whether waterboarding was torture. If Congress thinks that it is, it should pass specific legislation outlawing waterboarding and that he, Graham, would vote for it. Well, now it is Graham who is blocking a bill in the Senate that would require the CIA to follow the Army Field Manual (and the Geneva Convention) on interrogation. The Army Field Manual specifically prohibits: stripping prisoners naked (done at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo) or using any sexual intimidation (not to mention worse); electric shock (done at Abu Ghraib), sleep deprivation, prolonged stress positions, beatings, mock executions, and, yes, waterboarding. The House has already passed this bill which Bush plans to veto--but if Graham were a man of his word, he would break with his party and work with Senate Democrats to get this passed. Is Graham a flip-flopper, a hypocrite, or just a LIAR? You decide.

As a bonus, the political booby prize goes to our own Obstructionist-in-Chief. The Democratic Senate Campaign Committee has released a year-end list of the foibles of Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). Read the list and then go to the campaign website of Andrew Horne (D-KY) and sign up to help us Ditch Mitch in '08 and get a real leader in the Senate for KY.

Top 10 Government Ethics Scandals of 2007

CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) released its top 10 ethical scandals list for 2007 today. No rankings within this top 10:

• No new enforcement mechanisms for congressional ethics
• Ted Stevens(R-AK) still sitting on Senate Appropriations (The FBI raided his house and office in their bribery investigations!)
• Senate Ethics Committee looking into Sen. Craig(R-ID), but not Sen. Vitter (R-LA)(Why would soliciting anonymous gay sex be a problem, but frequenting heterosexual prostitutes not? Homophobic much, senators?)
• Millions of missing White House emails still unaccounted for
• Rep. Murtha(D-PA)’s abuse of the earmarking process remains unchecked
• Lurita Doan remains chief of Government Services Administration despite illegal conduct
• White House covering up its role in the firings of the U.S. Attorneys (I guess this list was made up before the even greater White House cover up of '07: the destruction of the CIA torture tape.)
• No Child Left Behind funds directed to Bush fundraisers who provide inadequate reading materials for kids
• Court decision regarding search of Jefferson’s office limits ability of DOJ to investigate other corrupt lawmakers
• FEMA knowingly let Katrina victims live in hazardous trailers (Not to mention evictions and the current attempt to destroy all public housing in New Orleans!)

The full report is here. Some progress was made at the beginning of 'o7 to follow through on the Democrats' promise to correct the "culture of corruption," but some of it was blocked in the Senate and not enough enforcement was done. In general, Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) has been as much a disappointment in this area as she has in oversight of the White House or other progressive causes. I hope her liberal district mounts a primary challenge against her. We need a true progressive as House Speaker and Pelosi is a huge disappointment.