Our prison population is growing three times faster than our actual population. We are building more prisons than schools. Last year we were the world leader in total number of citizens incarcerated - coming in ahead of China who has a population which is more than four times as large as ours. According to the Pew Report released yesterday, 750 out of every 100,000 people are incarcerated in the United States, ahead of Russia (628 per 100,000) and other former Soviet bloc nations which make up the rest of the Top 10.
Altogether, there are more than 2.3 million Americans incarcerated according to the study which gathered its data at the beginning of 2008. Further, a U.S. Justice Department report released on November 30, 2006 showed that a record 7 million people - or one in every 32 American adults - were behind bars, on probation or on parole.
The majority of today's prison population is made up of non-violent offenders. Since 1970, the prison population has increased more than eight fold. The War on Drugs is largely responsible for this reality which began with the Nixon administration and their establishment of the Drug Enforcement Administration in 1973. Now, more than 2 million of the 7 million Americans in the criminal justice system are drug offenders. For more information on this topic - Thirty Years of America's Drug War, courtesy of Frontline.
Eric Schlosser, author of Prison Nation: The Warehousing of America's Poor, makes several excellent points in his book pertaining to prisons and the criminal justice system as a whole. Most telling are those which pertain to the education and mental health of many of those who are locked behind bars. In his book he points out that 70% of the prison population is illiterate and approximately 25% suffer from mental illness.
Instead of promoting laws which push for longer sentencing and steeper penalties, we need to move forward an agenda which is more proactive and prevents people from committing crimes. We need to provide people who are at risk in the system with the resources that are essential to becoming productive members of society.
Education, community resource centers, treatment for addiction and rehabilitation programs are the answer. Drug addiction should be treated as a mental health issue, not a crime. We spend more than fifty billion dollars a year on our prison system. This is money that could be used to propel our public schools. Further, this dollar figure does not take into account the resources that are utilized by police departments to fight petty crime such as marijuana possession. Since 1990, more than 10 million Americans have been charged with crimes surrounding marijuana.
It is time to address these issues and we need to demand that our elected representatives take action. We cannot continue down this road. Incarceration is not a humanitarian solution to dealing with those who are uneducated and suffering from mental health issues.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Why Does Karl Rove Want Obama to be the Democratic Nominee?
In December of 2007, Karl Rove wrote a letter to Barack Obama in the Financial Times. The letter carefully detailed a strategy for how Barack Obama could defeat Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries.
What I want to know is the following -- Why does the once chief strategist for the Republican Party have an interest in Barack Obama winning the Democratic nomination?
Surely Karl hasn't lost faith in the modern day GOP which he has largely helped build. He couldn't suddenly have turned coat and become a Barack Obama supporter. It could only be one thing -- He is the candidate he wants the Republican Party to be facing come the November election.
Do you remember the smear campaign against Harold Ford of the 9th Disctrict of Tennessee in the 2006 election?
If you think the racist undertones, distortions and exaggerations are bad in that ad, just try to imagine what is coming down the pipe for Barack Hussein Obama. He isn't even the nominee and already accusations are flying around surrounding his name --- Barack Obama is involved in fraudulent land deals! He is a drug user! He is a secret member of Al-Qaeda! Barack Obama is a Muslim, haven't you seen him in the traditional garb!? Barack Obama is a homosexual! Senator Obama refuses to salute the flag during the Pledge of Allegiance or even wear a flag lapel pin!
Some of these accusations seem all too familiar seeing as how they've been used against Democrats in the past by the Republican Party. But never suspect that the American people are incapable of being fooled twice ('00, '04). And as Democrats or Independents, we should never underestimate the capability of the Republican Party when it comes to playing dirty politics.
These are the same people who convinced the American public that someone who had served their country in Vietnam was a coward all the while leaving their own candidate who literally dodged the draft unscathed.
If you thought the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads were bad, I'm guessing we haven't seen nothin' yet.
What I want to know is the following -- Why does the once chief strategist for the Republican Party have an interest in Barack Obama winning the Democratic nomination?
Surely Karl hasn't lost faith in the modern day GOP which he has largely helped build. He couldn't suddenly have turned coat and become a Barack Obama supporter. It could only be one thing -- He is the candidate he wants the Republican Party to be facing come the November election.
Do you remember the smear campaign against Harold Ford of the 9th Disctrict of Tennessee in the 2006 election?
If you think the racist undertones, distortions and exaggerations are bad in that ad, just try to imagine what is coming down the pipe for Barack Hussein Obama. He isn't even the nominee and already accusations are flying around surrounding his name --- Barack Obama is involved in fraudulent land deals! He is a drug user! He is a secret member of Al-Qaeda! Barack Obama is a Muslim, haven't you seen him in the traditional garb!? Barack Obama is a homosexual! Senator Obama refuses to salute the flag during the Pledge of Allegiance or even wear a flag lapel pin!
Some of these accusations seem all too familiar seeing as how they've been used against Democrats in the past by the Republican Party. But never suspect that the American people are incapable of being fooled twice ('00, '04). And as Democrats or Independents, we should never underestimate the capability of the Republican Party when it comes to playing dirty politics.
These are the same people who convinced the American public that someone who had served their country in Vietnam was a coward all the while leaving their own candidate who literally dodged the draft unscathed.
If you thought the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads were bad, I'm guessing we haven't seen nothin' yet.
Stop Outsourcing Security (SOS) Act
If you have read Jeremy Scahill's recent bestseller, Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army, your eyes have been opened to the vast number of problems surrounding and being created by the use of privatized military forces. If you have not read this title yet, you need to do so urgently.
Yesterday, Scahill, also a writer for the Nation Magazine, wrote an article exposing the fact that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have both stated that they will not support the Stop Outsourcing Securty (SOS) Act. Further, Barack Obama has said that if he is to become the next president, he will consider the long term strategic use of privatized military forces in strategic territories throughout the world, including Iraq and Afghanistan.
Barack or Hillary is going to become the face of the Democratic party before long. In turn they will inherit the power to make this legislation a reality. It is paramount that this legislation is passed to preserve the integrity of our military and to hold privatized military contractors accountable for their wrongdoing abroad as well as domestically.
Contact Your Senator
Contact Your Representative
Yesterday, Scahill, also a writer for the Nation Magazine, wrote an article exposing the fact that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have both stated that they will not support the Stop Outsourcing Securty (SOS) Act. Further, Barack Obama has said that if he is to become the next president, he will consider the long term strategic use of privatized military forces in strategic territories throughout the world, including Iraq and Afghanistan.
Barack or Hillary is going to become the face of the Democratic party before long. In turn they will inherit the power to make this legislation a reality. It is paramount that this legislation is passed to preserve the integrity of our military and to hold privatized military contractors accountable for their wrongdoing abroad as well as domestically.
Contact Your Senator
Contact Your Representative
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
A Tribute to Third Parties
Third parties have been instrumental in shaping the culture of the country we live in today. While only one third party candidate has ever been able to win the presidential nomination, Abraham Lincoln of the Republican Party, several third parties have been able to enter and influence the national debate. These parties include but are not limited to --- The Reform Party, The Populist Party and The Socialist Party. While these parties are no longer a part of the American political process, their influence lives on.
A short list of accomplishments which can be attributed to their existence in the United States includes -- The abolishment of slavery, the women's suffrage movement, child labor laws, and the 40-hour work week which later lead to the Labor Standards Act of 1938.
We owe a thanks to their efforts and achievements. They've made us a better people and nation. Yet today, we criticize those who run for the office of president under a third party platform.
After Al Gore's defeat to George W. Bush in 2000, Ralph Nader became the target of many Democratic Party supporters. They reasoned that his presence in the race shifted enough votes from Gore to Nader to tilt the election in Bush's favor.
Instead of faulting Nader, another voice in the political arena, actual problems which were and still are detrimental to the electoral process should have been targeted.
Gore won the popular vote, yet the electoral college elected Bush. Thousands of African American voters were disenfranchised in Florida. The Supreme Court stopped the recount in Florida in turn giving Bush a win in the state by slightly more than 500 votes. And we all remember hearing the stories about butterfly-ballots. So why is it that we blame the third party candidate, one factor in the election, who simply ran to give the American people an alternative choice to the corporately sponsored candidates who represent the establishment parties?
Ralph Nader is a model citizen and has arguably had as great of an impact on every man, woman and child as any president that has served in this country. His resume includes the Freedom of Information Act, the Clean Air Act, the Consumer Protection Agency, airbags and seat belts in cars and much more.
Ralph is a man of the people who has been serving his country proudly since 1968. He doesn't deserve our criticism for running for the office of president, we owe him our thanks. Oh, and happy Birthday Ralph, you're 74.
Watch Ralph's campaign announcement from this past Sunday on Meet the Press.
Related Article 1
Related Article 2
Nader '08 Campaign Website
A short list of accomplishments which can be attributed to their existence in the United States includes -- The abolishment of slavery, the women's suffrage movement, child labor laws, and the 40-hour work week which later lead to the Labor Standards Act of 1938.
We owe a thanks to their efforts and achievements. They've made us a better people and nation. Yet today, we criticize those who run for the office of president under a third party platform.
After Al Gore's defeat to George W. Bush in 2000, Ralph Nader became the target of many Democratic Party supporters. They reasoned that his presence in the race shifted enough votes from Gore to Nader to tilt the election in Bush's favor.
Instead of faulting Nader, another voice in the political arena, actual problems which were and still are detrimental to the electoral process should have been targeted.
Gore won the popular vote, yet the electoral college elected Bush. Thousands of African American voters were disenfranchised in Florida. The Supreme Court stopped the recount in Florida in turn giving Bush a win in the state by slightly more than 500 votes. And we all remember hearing the stories about butterfly-ballots. So why is it that we blame the third party candidate, one factor in the election, who simply ran to give the American people an alternative choice to the corporately sponsored candidates who represent the establishment parties?
Ralph Nader is a model citizen and has arguably had as great of an impact on every man, woman and child as any president that has served in this country. His resume includes the Freedom of Information Act, the Clean Air Act, the Consumer Protection Agency, airbags and seat belts in cars and much more.
Ralph is a man of the people who has been serving his country proudly since 1968. He doesn't deserve our criticism for running for the office of president, we owe him our thanks. Oh, and happy Birthday Ralph, you're 74.
Watch Ralph's campaign announcement from this past Sunday on Meet the Press.
Related Article 1
Related Article 2
Nader '08 Campaign Website
Friday, February 22, 2008
An Open Letter to Ed Schultz & His Listeners
Remember when AAR launched in March of 2004? I do. I was living in Portland and was ecstatic. All of the shows were refreshing to listen to during the daily commute. Listening on AM 620, I caught parts of the Al Franken Show and Ed Schultz Show regularly. Ed Schultz was quick to let his listeners know who were calling in that he was not a part of AAR, but rather part of the Jones Radio Network.
Ed's show routinely had excellent guests which I enjoyed. More often than not, I did not agree with or appreciate his commentary on the daily issues however. It was "too mainstream" for me. He was unwilling to take risks with his commentary and reminded me of what I heard on the nightly cable news networks.
Regardless, I continued to listen to his show because I wanted to support all progressive outlets. To this day, I still routinely listen to Ed's show.
What made me write this was his quip today at AAR. He didn't name hosts, but he spoke of the network and essentially said to his listeners -- I know they're making remarks, but I'm above it.
Come on Big Eddie. You've used your show as a mouthpiece to rip AAR time and time again. I've been listening to you as long as I've been listening to Mike Malloy (Now with Nova M). You've got to be able to take it if you're going to dish it. Don't act like you're above it, we all remember your rant about how the network was made up of a bunch of low-life commentators who didn't pay their bills. It was vicious. It was Fox News-esque.
But this thread isn't about the Big Eddie vs AAR smack-a-thon that has been taking place over the years. It is about routinely ranting that you're the number one voice in progressive radio. I contest this advertising gimmick on two fronts. One, your ratings are nothing when compared next to the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage. So what does listenership really mean? It surely isn't a testament to the quality of the program or its content.
Two, your show isn't progressive. Would you argue that CNN, MSNBC, etc. are progressive news networks? They aren't. They are entertainment news networks which don't focus on content, they focus on side stories and what I like to call misinformation. Your show is modeled around them. It is why you are invited as a frequent guest on Larry King and many of the other network programs, including Fox and Friends.
I wish your show was truly progressive. I wish it talked more about the issues of our time and attempted to engage its listeners as well as get them to be informed and involved in the political process. But apparently there aren't ratings in that. And at the end of the day it is all about ratings. Everything comes back to dollars.
So go on. Continue to boast about being the number one progressive talker. Us on the left will continue to laugh. And yes Eddie, I've heard your rants about how we (the left) don't have a big enough tent. We don't want the tent to be so big that the whole right fits in it as well. That is what has happened in America today. The spectrum is so flawed that we think opinions right of center are too liberal. You perpetuate this problem.
Ed's show routinely had excellent guests which I enjoyed. More often than not, I did not agree with or appreciate his commentary on the daily issues however. It was "too mainstream" for me. He was unwilling to take risks with his commentary and reminded me of what I heard on the nightly cable news networks.
Regardless, I continued to listen to his show because I wanted to support all progressive outlets. To this day, I still routinely listen to Ed's show.
What made me write this was his quip today at AAR. He didn't name hosts, but he spoke of the network and essentially said to his listeners -- I know they're making remarks, but I'm above it.
Come on Big Eddie. You've used your show as a mouthpiece to rip AAR time and time again. I've been listening to you as long as I've been listening to Mike Malloy (Now with Nova M). You've got to be able to take it if you're going to dish it. Don't act like you're above it, we all remember your rant about how the network was made up of a bunch of low-life commentators who didn't pay their bills. It was vicious. It was Fox News-esque.
But this thread isn't about the Big Eddie vs AAR smack-a-thon that has been taking place over the years. It is about routinely ranting that you're the number one voice in progressive radio. I contest this advertising gimmick on two fronts. One, your ratings are nothing when compared next to the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage. So what does listenership really mean? It surely isn't a testament to the quality of the program or its content.
Two, your show isn't progressive. Would you argue that CNN, MSNBC, etc. are progressive news networks? They aren't. They are entertainment news networks which don't focus on content, they focus on side stories and what I like to call misinformation. Your show is modeled around them. It is why you are invited as a frequent guest on Larry King and many of the other network programs, including Fox and Friends.
I wish your show was truly progressive. I wish it talked more about the issues of our time and attempted to engage its listeners as well as get them to be informed and involved in the political process. But apparently there aren't ratings in that. And at the end of the day it is all about ratings. Everything comes back to dollars.
So go on. Continue to boast about being the number one progressive talker. Us on the left will continue to laugh. And yes Eddie, I've heard your rants about how we (the left) don't have a big enough tent. We don't want the tent to be so big that the whole right fits in it as well. That is what has happened in America today. The spectrum is so flawed that we think opinions right of center are too liberal. You perpetuate this problem.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Politics of Hope? Change We Can Believe In?
Since Senator Obama announced his campaign for the office of President of the United States of America on February 10th, 2007, his speeches have been riddled with rhetoric about him being above lobbyist contributions. On Februrary 5th, 2008, Barack exclaimed the following words to a crowd of supporters in Chicago:
"It's a choice between a candidate who's taken more money from Washington lobbyists than either Republican in this race and a campaign that has not taken a dime of their money." Speech Transcript.
Stop. Hold it right there Senator Obama.
Lobbyists generally are paid by corporations, unions and other interest groups to shape public policy by making regular contact with government officials. They must register with both houses of Congress, and make public disclosures identifying their clients and the amounts they are paid.
Some of the most influential players, lawyers and consultants among them, skirt disclosure requirements by merely advising clients and associates who do actual lobbying, and avoiding regular contact with policymakers. Obama's ban does not cover such individuals. Full Story.
The other big element in Obama's stand against the world of special interests is his refusal to take PAC money. While this may be noble, experts say it isn't much of a sacrifice.
Top Contributors
Exelon Corp, who is on that list of top campaigns contributors, has contributed more than $230,000 to Barack Obama since 2003.
If you have registered as a supporter for Barack's presidential bid, you have been receiving his inspiring e-mails. In one seeking money, Obama decried the special interest industry in Washington and warned it would spend more money than ever to "try to own our political process." "We're not going to play that game," the e-mail said.
Unfortunately, Barack's own legislative history says otherwise.
When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, Barack Obama took up the cause.
Senator Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.”
"It's a choice between a candidate who's taken more money from Washington lobbyists than either Republican in this race and a campaign that has not taken a dime of their money." Speech Transcript.
Stop. Hold it right there Senator Obama.
Lobbyists generally are paid by corporations, unions and other interest groups to shape public policy by making regular contact with government officials. They must register with both houses of Congress, and make public disclosures identifying their clients and the amounts they are paid.
Some of the most influential players, lawyers and consultants among them, skirt disclosure requirements by merely advising clients and associates who do actual lobbying, and avoiding regular contact with policymakers. Obama's ban does not cover such individuals. Full Story.
The other big element in Obama's stand against the world of special interests is his refusal to take PAC money. While this may be noble, experts say it isn't much of a sacrifice.
Massie Ritsch, Communications Director for the Center for Responsive Politics, says it is not particularly risky to eschew PAC money since it "amounts to only about 1 percent of the money in any presidential campaign. So you're not leaving a whole lot of money on the table when you say 'I'm not taking PAC money.'" Full Story.
OpenSecrets.org tracks political contributions for all members of both houses of congress and has been tracking contributions to each of the presidential campaigns. This link will detail Barack Obama's top contributors to his presidential campaign. Its not exactly the list of "ordinary Americans" he boasts to have taken his contributions from.Top Contributors
| Goldman Sachs | $421,763 |
| Ubs Ag | $296,670 |
| Lehman Brothers | $250,630 |
| National Amusements Inc | $245,843 |
| JP Morgan Chase & Co | $243,848 |
| Sidley Austin LLP | $226,491 |
| Citigroup Inc | $221,578 |
| Exelon Corp | $221,517 |
| Skadden, Arps Et Al | $196,420 |
| Jones Day | $181,996 |
| Harvard University | $172,324 |
| Citadel Investment Group | $171,798 |
| Time Warner | $155,383 |
| Morgan Stanley | $155,196 |
| Google Inc | $152,802 |
| University of California | $143,029 |
| Jenner & Block | $136,565 |
| Kirkland & Ellis | $134,738 |
| Wilmerhale Llp | $119,245 |
| Credit Suisse Group | $118,250 |
Exelon Corp, who is on that list of top campaigns contributors, has contributed more than $230,000 to Barack Obama since 2003.
If you have registered as a supporter for Barack's presidential bid, you have been receiving his inspiring e-mails. In one seeking money, Obama decried the special interest industry in Washington and warned it would spend more money than ever to "try to own our political process." "We're not going to play that game," the e-mail said.
Unfortunately, Barack's own legislative history says otherwise.
When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, Barack Obama took up the cause.
Senator Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.”
“I just did that last year,” he said, to murmurs of approval.
A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.
Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate. It did not pass. Full Story.
While Obama is on the campaign trail claiming to be above "old politics", the voting record, campaign contributions and legislation he has participated in says otherwise. What is unfortunate about this is that he has raised the spirits of millions of Americans who truly believe he is going to fight "Washington's ways" and bring responsibility and ethics to the White House. While he may attempt to accomplish this, the facts on the table indicate otherwise.Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Do Your Part to Support the Constitution
Are you outraged with this administration's trampling of the Constitution? Have you written your House Representative? Senators? House Judiciary Committee? Nancy Pelosi? Daily Newspaper? You can reach each of them with your sentiments on this issue in a single email by using this website which also lets them know that you support HR 333.
HR 333 is a resolution which was introduced to congress by Dennis Kucinich on November 6th, 2007. As of today, it has 24 cosponsors but is in need of significantly more. If you believe this Presidential Administration should be held accountable and impeachment hearings should be held starting with Richard Cheney, it is essential that you contact your representative and let them know that you would like them to be a cosponsor of HR 333.
On the night Dennis introduced this resolution to the floor, it was treated like a political stunt largely by both parties. The Democrats toed with Pelosi who said impeachment was off of the table and the Republicans voted in support of Kucinich's bill in an attempt to upset Speaker Pelosi. When all was said and done, the bill was shelved with the Judiciary Committee. This resolution does not deserve to be treated with so little respect by our elected representatives. If you're outraged by this, please do your part and contact those who have been given the power to protect and uphold our constitution. Read the full story here.
The following video shows Dennis introducing HR 333 to the House of Representatives.
Robert Wexler of the 19th district of Florida has also created a petition in which he is trying to collect 1 million signatures in support of impeaching Richard Cheney for abusing the powers of his office and violating our civil liberties. As of today, he has collected nearly 230,000 signatures. If this is something you care about, be sure to sign the petition along with your family and friends.
The following video shows Wexler presenting his petition along with collected signatures on the House floor.
In case you're reading this and you've forgotten that the Bush administration lied us into a war with and now occupation of Iraq, The Center for Public Integrity has tracked and recorded 935 lies that were told to the American people and International Community in the lead up to the war. The following video has captured a portion of those lies and then those who told the lies denying that they made those lies.
Nearly 4,000 US troops have been killed, nearly 30,000 troops have been injured and over 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens have perished because of the lies these people have told. These are high crimes. If those who are responsible are not held accountable, what precedent are we allowing to be set for future administrations?
The time to act is now.
You're damn right Dennis.
Related Story
HR 333 is a resolution which was introduced to congress by Dennis Kucinich on November 6th, 2007. As of today, it has 24 cosponsors but is in need of significantly more. If you believe this Presidential Administration should be held accountable and impeachment hearings should be held starting with Richard Cheney, it is essential that you contact your representative and let them know that you would like them to be a cosponsor of HR 333.
On the night Dennis introduced this resolution to the floor, it was treated like a political stunt largely by both parties. The Democrats toed with Pelosi who said impeachment was off of the table and the Republicans voted in support of Kucinich's bill in an attempt to upset Speaker Pelosi. When all was said and done, the bill was shelved with the Judiciary Committee. This resolution does not deserve to be treated with so little respect by our elected representatives. If you're outraged by this, please do your part and contact those who have been given the power to protect and uphold our constitution. Read the full story here.
The following video shows Dennis introducing HR 333 to the House of Representatives.
Robert Wexler of the 19th district of Florida has also created a petition in which he is trying to collect 1 million signatures in support of impeaching Richard Cheney for abusing the powers of his office and violating our civil liberties. As of today, he has collected nearly 230,000 signatures. If this is something you care about, be sure to sign the petition along with your family and friends.
The following video shows Wexler presenting his petition along with collected signatures on the House floor.
In case you're reading this and you've forgotten that the Bush administration lied us into a war with and now occupation of Iraq, The Center for Public Integrity has tracked and recorded 935 lies that were told to the American people and International Community in the lead up to the war. The following video has captured a portion of those lies and then those who told the lies denying that they made those lies.
Nearly 4,000 US troops have been killed, nearly 30,000 troops have been injured and over 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens have perished because of the lies these people have told. These are high crimes. If those who are responsible are not held accountable, what precedent are we allowing to be set for future administrations?
The time to act is now.
You're damn right Dennis.
Related Story
Which President-elect Do You Want to Invade Iran?
John McCanin has made it quite clear that he is a War Hawk and is fully ready to take military action against Iran. On the other side of the aisle, Senators Obama and Clinton have been vocally more cautious around the issue but equally as open to the idea of taking military action against Iran as a preemptive measure.
On Septemeber 26, 2007, Hillary Clinton voted for the resolution sponsored by Independent Joe Lieberman and Republican Jon Kyl which denounced the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. The resolution passed 76-22, in turn giving the Bush administration a potential fig leaf to attack Iran.
Shorlty after the vote took place, theREALnews assembled the following story for it's viewers to watch.
Barack Obama, not willing to miss a political opportunity, had the following to say about Hillary's vote regarding the Iran Resolution:
"I don't think it disqualified her, but I think it speaks to her judgment, and it speaks to my judgment," Obama said. "It speaks to how we will make decisions going forward."
"I think her judgment was flawed on this issue," he said.
"This was a vote for war," he added. "You can't give this president a blank check and be surprised when he cashes it."
But what ground did Barack have to stand on to make these remarks? Senator Obama did not cast a vote for the resolution. According to his campaign team, abstaining from voting was not a political decision, but was a circumstance which arose from not being given adequate notice to when the vote would be held. The Democratic Committee did not accept this reasoning however, stating that all Senators were given equal notice the day prior to the vote.
While this may or may not be the truth, Obama did vote in March of 2007 for a similar bill, S. 970: Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007. This bill was written to impose sanctions on Iran and on other countries for assisting Iran in developing a nuclear program, and for other purposes. While the bill did not equate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps to a terrorist organization, it did help further the buildup which is taking place as you're reading this to invade Iran.
So who are you going to vote for? Perhaps the two Senator's recent interviews with 60 Minutes will help you decide.
Asked by 60 Minutes where he would use military force to disrupt the Iranian weapon program, Barack Obama said, "I think we should keep all options on the table." And Hillary Clinton, speaking to AIPAC, said, "We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons, and in dealing with this threat, as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table." Story.
The following is a segment from the Democratic Debate which took place in New Hampshire on September 26th, 2007, the day the Iran Resolution was passed in the Senate.
My question is this. What happened to the anti-war movement? Was Iraq not the decisive issue just less than two years ago? Has our anti-war stance disappeared down the memory hole so soon? We have three candidates left in the race, none of whom are opposed to military action in the Middle East. How has this happened?
We had candidates on the stage running for president who echoed the sentiments most Americans shared.
We denied these candidates our vote. We need to ask ourselves why we are in this situation yet again. We need to find the answers to these questions and we need to remember not to repeat them again. Here is to hoping that day arrives sooner than the next war.
On Septemeber 26, 2007, Hillary Clinton voted for the resolution sponsored by Independent Joe Lieberman and Republican Jon Kyl which denounced the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. The resolution passed 76-22, in turn giving the Bush administration a potential fig leaf to attack Iran.
Shorlty after the vote took place, theREALnews assembled the following story for it's viewers to watch.
Barack Obama, not willing to miss a political opportunity, had the following to say about Hillary's vote regarding the Iran Resolution:
"I don't think it disqualified her, but I think it speaks to her judgment, and it speaks to my judgment," Obama said. "It speaks to how we will make decisions going forward."
"I think her judgment was flawed on this issue," he said.
"This was a vote for war," he added. "You can't give this president a blank check and be surprised when he cashes it."
But what ground did Barack have to stand on to make these remarks? Senator Obama did not cast a vote for the resolution. According to his campaign team, abstaining from voting was not a political decision, but was a circumstance which arose from not being given adequate notice to when the vote would be held. The Democratic Committee did not accept this reasoning however, stating that all Senators were given equal notice the day prior to the vote.
While this may or may not be the truth, Obama did vote in March of 2007 for a similar bill, S. 970: Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007. This bill was written to impose sanctions on Iran and on other countries for assisting Iran in developing a nuclear program, and for other purposes. While the bill did not equate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps to a terrorist organization, it did help further the buildup which is taking place as you're reading this to invade Iran.
So who are you going to vote for? Perhaps the two Senator's recent interviews with 60 Minutes will help you decide.
Asked by 60 Minutes where he would use military force to disrupt the Iranian weapon program, Barack Obama said, "I think we should keep all options on the table." And Hillary Clinton, speaking to AIPAC, said, "We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons, and in dealing with this threat, as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table." Story.
The following is a segment from the Democratic Debate which took place in New Hampshire on September 26th, 2007, the day the Iran Resolution was passed in the Senate.
My question is this. What happened to the anti-war movement? Was Iraq not the decisive issue just less than two years ago? Has our anti-war stance disappeared down the memory hole so soon? We have three candidates left in the race, none of whom are opposed to military action in the Middle East. How has this happened?
We had candidates on the stage running for president who echoed the sentiments most Americans shared.
We denied these candidates our vote. We need to ask ourselves why we are in this situation yet again. We need to find the answers to these questions and we need to remember not to repeat them again. Here is to hoping that day arrives sooner than the next war.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Common Sense Is Refreshing
Mike Papantonio of GoLeft TV and Air America's Ring of Fire talks with Democratic Senator Mike Gravel about the re-release of his book "Citizen Power" and about the 2008 election.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Immunity for Telecoms for Violating the Law?
On February 12th, 2008, the Senate voted on a provision which will be included in the update to the thirty year old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The provision was to remove retroactive immunity to lawsuits directed at the telecommunication companies which participated in the intercepting of and spying on of phone calls coming to and going out of the United States without seeking warrants from the FISA court first.
The bill failed in the Senate, 31-67. In turn, the Senate sided with the Bush administration, agreeing that the Telecoms should have retroactive immunity to lawsuits regarding their violation of the FISA laws that were on the books at the time.
If you'd like to see how your Senator voted, click here. For the record, Hillary abstained from voting and Barack voted against immunity for the Telecoms.
In 21 days, the House of Representatives will vote on their version of the bill. If you feel that it is important these telecommunication companies be held accountable for their roll in violating the FISA laws, contact your congressman or woman now! Inaction on our behalf will help continue to set a terrible precedent for what an American Presidential Administration can get away with while in office.
Remember, these companies violated the law. These laws were in place for a reason and were designed to protect the American people. National Intelligence director Mike McConnell recently said the following:
"The reason that the FISA law was passed in 1978 was an arrangement was worked out between the Congress and the administration, we did not want to allow this community to conduct surveillance, electronic surveillance, of Americans for foreign intelligence unless you had a warrant, so that was required."
This issue is crystal clear. To read more of the Salon.com story, click here. More importantly, remember to contact your congressional representative. Thank you.
The bill failed in the Senate, 31-67. In turn, the Senate sided with the Bush administration, agreeing that the Telecoms should have retroactive immunity to lawsuits regarding their violation of the FISA laws that were on the books at the time.
If you'd like to see how your Senator voted, click here. For the record, Hillary abstained from voting and Barack voted against immunity for the Telecoms.
In 21 days, the House of Representatives will vote on their version of the bill. If you feel that it is important these telecommunication companies be held accountable for their roll in violating the FISA laws, contact your congressman or woman now! Inaction on our behalf will help continue to set a terrible precedent for what an American Presidential Administration can get away with while in office.
Remember, these companies violated the law. These laws were in place for a reason and were designed to protect the American people. National Intelligence director Mike McConnell recently said the following:
"The reason that the FISA law was passed in 1978 was an arrangement was worked out between the Congress and the administration, we did not want to allow this community to conduct surveillance, electronic surveillance, of Americans for foreign intelligence unless you had a warrant, so that was required."
This issue is crystal clear. To read more of the Salon.com story, click here. More importantly, remember to contact your congressional representative. Thank you.
The Next President Won't Save Our Environment: Only You Will
Is your faucet dripping? What temperature is your thermostat set at? Did you drive three blocks to the grocery store? What did you eat for lunch today? Did you leave a light on unnecessarily? As Americans, we are over consuming. We make up less than 5% of the world's population yet we are using more than 25% of the total resources that are consumed annually.
Our current consumption habits are not sustainable according to a report that was released by the United Nations in 2007. For every product a citizen of our largest trading partner buys, China, we purchase 53. Or from another perspective, one American's consumption of resources is equal to that of 35 Indians.
"Worldwide, from the 1950s to the 1990s, our consumption of timber, steel, copper, meat and energy on a per capita basis doubled. Our use of plastic quintupled." In turn, "the world lost more than 30 percent of the resources it needed to sustain life and 10 percent of its forests between 1970 and 1995, Sierra Club says."
So what are we to do? According to many environmental groups, the greatest change one can have with regards to reducing their environmental footprint is by modifying their diet. For more information on the impact one's diet has on the planet, the internet is an excellent resource. EMagazine wrote an excellent article on the subject. Authors Eric Schlosser and John Robbins have also written two entertaining and educational books on the subject, Fast Food Nation and Diet for a New America, respectively.
While governmental leadership on the environmental front is a luxury to have - it is you - the consumer who has the power to make the change that is necessary to protect and preserve our planet. Educate yourself on the issues, make the sacrifices that are necessary and be a part of the solution.
Our current consumption habits are not sustainable according to a report that was released by the United Nations in 2007. For every product a citizen of our largest trading partner buys, China, we purchase 53. Or from another perspective, one American's consumption of resources is equal to that of 35 Indians.
"Worldwide, from the 1950s to the 1990s, our consumption of timber, steel, copper, meat and energy on a per capita basis doubled. Our use of plastic quintupled." In turn, "the world lost more than 30 percent of the resources it needed to sustain life and 10 percent of its forests between 1970 and 1995, Sierra Club says."
So what are we to do? According to many environmental groups, the greatest change one can have with regards to reducing their environmental footprint is by modifying their diet. For more information on the impact one's diet has on the planet, the internet is an excellent resource. EMagazine wrote an excellent article on the subject. Authors Eric Schlosser and John Robbins have also written two entertaining and educational books on the subject, Fast Food Nation and Diet for a New America, respectively.
While governmental leadership on the environmental front is a luxury to have - it is you - the consumer who has the power to make the change that is necessary to protect and preserve our planet. Educate yourself on the issues, make the sacrifices that are necessary and be a part of the solution.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Can Humans and Fish Coexist Peacefully?
We all remember when George uttered the following words.
But was he correct?
A recent discovery in the Potomac River shows that male fish are laying eggs. The cause is uncertain at this point. Everything from chicken farms to household chemicals are potential culprits. What is certain however is that human involvement can be attributed to the problem. Our massive consumption habits have caused massive quantities of pollutants to contaminate our water and our air.
In late 2006, a team of ecologists released a report stating that their studies indicated all saltwater fish would be extinct by the year 2048. The story was widely reported in the mainstream press but like most news stories, it was out of sight and out of mind for most Americans by the time the next episode of their favorite reality TV series came around.
This is why it is necessary to have a government which is invested in protecting its people and the environment. Inaction on issues such as these will be just as catastrophic as any "missile crisis" or "terrorist threat".
The planet is our life support system. Without it, there is no us.
But was he correct?
A recent discovery in the Potomac River shows that male fish are laying eggs. The cause is uncertain at this point. Everything from chicken farms to household chemicals are potential culprits. What is certain however is that human involvement can be attributed to the problem. Our massive consumption habits have caused massive quantities of pollutants to contaminate our water and our air.
In late 2006, a team of ecologists released a report stating that their studies indicated all saltwater fish would be extinct by the year 2048. The story was widely reported in the mainstream press but like most news stories, it was out of sight and out of mind for most Americans by the time the next episode of their favorite reality TV series came around.
This is why it is necessary to have a government which is invested in protecting its people and the environment. Inaction on issues such as these will be just as catastrophic as any "missile crisis" or "terrorist threat".
The planet is our life support system. Without it, there is no us.
Monday, February 11, 2008
My First Caucus: One for the Memory Bank
This past Saturday, February 09, 2008, I attended my first State Caucus. The venue for my designated precinct was the Center School which is located at the Seattle Center, once built to be home to the World's Fair of 1962, the first World's Fair held in the United States after World War II. The Fair's purpose was to promote prosperity while educating and entertaining those who attended. Not unlike those who attended the fair in '62, I sought to attend the caucus as a means of educating myself about the political process and in hopes of being entertained by people who are as passionate about their politics as I am.
Within minutes of entering the room which was designated for constituents of lower Queen Anne (Precinct SEA 36-1709), groups of people were forming and they were sharing their thoughts and hopes about the candidates that they were there to support. Approximately 100 people were crowded into the classroom which would serve as our podium for political debate.
This being my first caucus, I came into it a bit naive. I imagined those who would be willing to attend such an event would be those who were well informed and might be described on the nightly news as 'activists' or 'extremists'. Afterall, that is what Hillary just called us. To my disappointment, I found myself in a room full of people who were relatively uninformed or in some cases outright misinformed. Instead of basking in a room of fellow outraged Kucinich supporters, I found myself to be a minority in a room full of people who were supporting the corporate heavyweight candidates, Obama and Clinton.
Those speaking out for Barack made false claims; "He is for Universal Health Care!", "He doesn't accept corporate money!", "He will bring real change in this country!" On the other side, Clinton supporters argued, "She has the experience that is necessary to bring change to this country!", "She will get us the Universal Health Care coverage we need!"
I remained silent, waiting for the right moment to speak. In my mind I was disappointed to hear people in the room making false claims. Could one really believe that Barack Obama does not accept corporate campaign contributions? The only candidate from either side of the aisle that has taken more of it than him was Hillary Clinton. And to believe that Hillary would bring us Universal Health Care? Hillary has taken more money from insurance companies and HMOs than every contestant in the race and has taken the second most money from the pharmaceutical giants, only coming in behind Barack Obama. On a related note, Barack comes in right behind Hillary when counting dollars from insurance companies and HMOs.
When those who were speaking out for why we should support Hillary or why we should support Barack finished, a beautiful voice emerged from the audience. She said, "While it is nice to have candidates who are ready to solve our problems, it is better to have a candidate who has the foresight to keep us out of these problems which need solving. That candidate is Dennis Kucinich. He was against the war before the anti-war movement started, he was against the PATRIOT Act from day one and he has fought for the side of every issue most of us in this room care about. Problem solving skills are great, but excellent foresight is what we need in an elected President." And with that, sanity was restored in the room. At least in my mind it was.
Moments later we were given an opportunity by the woman orchestrating the caucus to mingle with our fellow Democrats in the room. I immediately sought out the woman in the Hillary corner who was certain Senator Clinton would achieve Universal Health Care for us as a nation.
I presented the facts to her regarding Hillary's corporate backing and asked her how she could believe such a candidate could resolve the Health Care crisis we have in this country. Further, I asked her why she didn't support Kucinich when he has also proposed Universal Health Care for Americans and has explained exactly how he will do it.
While talking to this woman about Universal Health Care and Kucinich, a man who was drawn to what I was saying blurted out, "But Kucinich is a kook!"
In response, I stated, "If in this room we were not given names or faces, but were instead given numbers and under each number we were given the issues and each candidate's stance on those issues, nearly everyone in this room would support the number which represented Dennis Kucinich. The corporate media wants you to think he is a kook because they don't want the American people to be presented with the real issues this country is facing. It is an information war. That is why Tim Russert, who works for MSNBC, who is owned by GE, who is one of the greatest profiteers from the War on Terrorism, asked Dennis if it was true that he has seen a UFO rather than ask him about the issues which pertain to this country. Asking that question is what contributes to people seeing Dennis as a kook rather than a man of the people who has a remarkable voting record in congress."
Another person who was drawn to the conversation exclaimed, "But he isn't electable!"
Irritated, I responded, "Electable to who? Who is telling you he isn't electable? Is it the same media which sold you the war in Iraq? When are we going to stop listening to who CNN, MSNBC, FOX, CBS, etc. tells us who we should vote for and instead vote for who he we think can do the best job?"
Another lady said that she doesn't watch television but instead reads the New York Times.
"But Ma'am, the New York Times has advertisers. Pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, HMOs, etc. all advertise in the New York Times. The New York Times has to appease its advertisers in the same fashion the corporate news networks do. You have to do your thinking for yourself. You have to get your news from not only the news paper and the television, but the internet and independent publications like The Nation and Mother Jones. This vote you are casting today is your's, it isn't the New York Times, it belongs to you. It should be based on what is important to you, not the motives of a large and widely syndicated News Paper."
When I was done ranting, I'd had several people come up to me and thank me for my passion and said they were willing to switch their vote from either Hillary or Barack to John Edwards. My ranting resulted in earning 2 delegates for Edwards but zero for Dennis Kucinich. At the conclusion of the caucus, our room had a delegate count of; Obama 11, Hillary 2, Edwards 2, Kucinich 0. Our caucus was like most others held throughout the state, in the end Obama took the overwhelming majority.
I left the caucus with mixed emotions. On one hand I was enthused about being able to talk with people and influence how they voted that day. On the other hand, I was sad that the room I had been a part of was sending the overwhelming message, "More corporately sponsored candidates please!" At the grassroots level, I thought this would not be the case. But I went into this as a learning experience and that is exactly what it turned out to be.
In hindsight, I am not surprised with the outcome of the caucus. We are a nation which seeks to be entertained. We like drama and characters who engage us. The battle between Hillary and Barack brings the Hollywoodism American's are lusting for to the political stage on a scale which has never before been seen.
Perhaps in a future election, when the opportunity to elect someone other than a Caucasian male is no longer a new fad, the issues that truly effect us as a nation will trump all other factors. Here is to hoping for that day.
Within minutes of entering the room which was designated for constituents of lower Queen Anne (Precinct SEA 36-1709), groups of people were forming and they were sharing their thoughts and hopes about the candidates that they were there to support. Approximately 100 people were crowded into the classroom which would serve as our podium for political debate.
This being my first caucus, I came into it a bit naive. I imagined those who would be willing to attend such an event would be those who were well informed and might be described on the nightly news as 'activists' or 'extremists'. Afterall, that is what Hillary just called us. To my disappointment, I found myself in a room full of people who were relatively uninformed or in some cases outright misinformed. Instead of basking in a room of fellow outraged Kucinich supporters, I found myself to be a minority in a room full of people who were supporting the corporate heavyweight candidates, Obama and Clinton.
Those speaking out for Barack made false claims; "He is for Universal Health Care!", "He doesn't accept corporate money!", "He will bring real change in this country!" On the other side, Clinton supporters argued, "She has the experience that is necessary to bring change to this country!", "She will get us the Universal Health Care coverage we need!"
I remained silent, waiting for the right moment to speak. In my mind I was disappointed to hear people in the room making false claims. Could one really believe that Barack Obama does not accept corporate campaign contributions? The only candidate from either side of the aisle that has taken more of it than him was Hillary Clinton. And to believe that Hillary would bring us Universal Health Care? Hillary has taken more money from insurance companies and HMOs than every contestant in the race and has taken the second most money from the pharmaceutical giants, only coming in behind Barack Obama. On a related note, Barack comes in right behind Hillary when counting dollars from insurance companies and HMOs.
When those who were speaking out for why we should support Hillary or why we should support Barack finished, a beautiful voice emerged from the audience. She said, "While it is nice to have candidates who are ready to solve our problems, it is better to have a candidate who has the foresight to keep us out of these problems which need solving. That candidate is Dennis Kucinich. He was against the war before the anti-war movement started, he was against the PATRIOT Act from day one and he has fought for the side of every issue most of us in this room care about. Problem solving skills are great, but excellent foresight is what we need in an elected President." And with that, sanity was restored in the room. At least in my mind it was.
Moments later we were given an opportunity by the woman orchestrating the caucus to mingle with our fellow Democrats in the room. I immediately sought out the woman in the Hillary corner who was certain Senator Clinton would achieve Universal Health Care for us as a nation.
I presented the facts to her regarding Hillary's corporate backing and asked her how she could believe such a candidate could resolve the Health Care crisis we have in this country. Further, I asked her why she didn't support Kucinich when he has also proposed Universal Health Care for Americans and has explained exactly how he will do it.
While talking to this woman about Universal Health Care and Kucinich, a man who was drawn to what I was saying blurted out, "But Kucinich is a kook!"
In response, I stated, "If in this room we were not given names or faces, but were instead given numbers and under each number we were given the issues and each candidate's stance on those issues, nearly everyone in this room would support the number which represented Dennis Kucinich. The corporate media wants you to think he is a kook because they don't want the American people to be presented with the real issues this country is facing. It is an information war. That is why Tim Russert, who works for MSNBC, who is owned by GE, who is one of the greatest profiteers from the War on Terrorism, asked Dennis if it was true that he has seen a UFO rather than ask him about the issues which pertain to this country. Asking that question is what contributes to people seeing Dennis as a kook rather than a man of the people who has a remarkable voting record in congress."
Another person who was drawn to the conversation exclaimed, "But he isn't electable!"
Irritated, I responded, "Electable to who? Who is telling you he isn't electable? Is it the same media which sold you the war in Iraq? When are we going to stop listening to who CNN, MSNBC, FOX, CBS, etc. tells us who we should vote for and instead vote for who he we think can do the best job?"
Another lady said that she doesn't watch television but instead reads the New York Times.
"But Ma'am, the New York Times has advertisers. Pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, HMOs, etc. all advertise in the New York Times. The New York Times has to appease its advertisers in the same fashion the corporate news networks do. You have to do your thinking for yourself. You have to get your news from not only the news paper and the television, but the internet and independent publications like The Nation and Mother Jones. This vote you are casting today is your's, it isn't the New York Times, it belongs to you. It should be based on what is important to you, not the motives of a large and widely syndicated News Paper."
When I was done ranting, I'd had several people come up to me and thank me for my passion and said they were willing to switch their vote from either Hillary or Barack to John Edwards. My ranting resulted in earning 2 delegates for Edwards but zero for Dennis Kucinich. At the conclusion of the caucus, our room had a delegate count of; Obama 11, Hillary 2, Edwards 2, Kucinich 0. Our caucus was like most others held throughout the state, in the end Obama took the overwhelming majority.
I left the caucus with mixed emotions. On one hand I was enthused about being able to talk with people and influence how they voted that day. On the other hand, I was sad that the room I had been a part of was sending the overwhelming message, "More corporately sponsored candidates please!" At the grassroots level, I thought this would not be the case. But I went into this as a learning experience and that is exactly what it turned out to be.
In hindsight, I am not surprised with the outcome of the caucus. We are a nation which seeks to be entertained. We like drama and characters who engage us. The battle between Hillary and Barack brings the Hollywoodism American's are lusting for to the political stage on a scale which has never before been seen.
Perhaps in a future election, when the opportunity to elect someone other than a Caucasian male is no longer a new fad, the issues that truly effect us as a nation will trump all other factors. Here is to hoping for that day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)