Progressives's topics - tribe.net

Economy worse?

2008-07-19T13:35:07Z

What if the U.S. economy is worse than what the media indicate? I'm not saying that's the case. I'm only asking a question.

posted in Progressives - 4 replies

7 tech ways to make america better

2008-07-10T13:50:55Z

credit where credit is due: i snagged this from another tribe -- thanks gerbil for being the original poster!

http://freepress.net/node/42178
ZDNet, July 7, 2008
By Mitch Ratcliffe

Something about getting a new neck earlier this spring made me start thinking about how to change my life to make America a better place. Here a few that you can try to make the country better over the Fourth of July weekend:

1.) Turn off your computer at night. I’ve always left my computers on until they need to be restarted. I found that by turning off my three desktop computers, I lowered my power bill by almost $30 a month. While I live in a hydro-electric power region, if you get your electricity from coal, this will also reduce the particulate pollution by pounds a day.

2.) Swear off your car. Not everyone can afford a Tesla electric car, but most of us can afford a scooter. Both my wife and I have abandoned our cars for the summer when making in-town trips. Instead, we ride scooters (we got our scooters here, if you are in the Seattle area). Vespas, the venerable Italian scooters, have always been interesting, but too expensive for me. There are a whole slew of Asian-made scooters that compete favorably on price while providing the quality of a Vespa. At 80 m.p.g. to 90 m.p.g., respectively, we’re cutting down our gas bill by at least $100 each month. Get a four-stroke engine to reduce pollution.

3.) Dig up and give away every cell phone in the house. Give them to U.S. troops serving overseas. Visit Cell Phones for Soldiers to learn how to do it. The group, founded by a couple of kids from Massachussets, has delivers thousands of cell phones with pre-paid minutes to troops each month.

4.) Give away your old PC. I’ve given old PCs with new education software to a couple kids I know whose families couldn’t afford them. There are organizations in every city that can use PC donations. Check here for a good primer from Microsoft on donating PCs. Or consider volunteering with GeekCorps, which provides information technology assistance in the developing world. If you don’t want to go overseas, just follow this link to Amazon and shop—part of the sale goes to GeekCorps. Everything we do for the world redounds to the credit of our nation.

5.) Start tracking your Congressional representatives’ votes. It’s not that hard to do and can help the people representing you do a better job, because you’ll find you pick up the phone or write about bills that interest you. GovTrack.us makes it easy. Visit the site, type in your representative’s name and you’ll get a complete report. Even better, you can get updates via RSS. Easy and a lot more interesting than you may think.

6.) Get your company to do something for the country. Too often, we leave our homes and drive through the world to an office, where we are insulated from what’s going on outside most of the day, then drive home, maybe watch some TV or surf the Net, and sleep. So, see if you can get your company to do something for that world you drive through on the way to work. Perhaps your software company could give a percentage of its sales to a local charity or your Net/telecom company could join Internet for Everyone, which is campaigning for universal Internet access.

7.) Don’t throw out your computer or mobile phone, recycle it. Americans trash 50 million computers and 130 cell phones every year. They contain a slew of heavy metals and, in some cases, toxins. Don’t just toss this stuff in the trash. Hewlett-Packard will recycle their PCs and ink cartridges, as well as batteries and cell phones; Dell and Apple will take any PC, if you buy a new computer from them. Here’s a list of computer recycling organizations.

These are small things we can do. Individually, they don’t make a huge difference, but it all adds up to major changes when we pull together. Come on, America, remember pulling together?

posted in Progressives - 7 replies

Iraq Under Occupation: Raed Jarrar decodes the misinformation

2008-07-09T08:43:29Z

Like a good progressive, I've tried to understand events in Iraq, sorting through the misinformation &n disinformation & seeking out alternative perspectives for the truth. After watching this one-hour video, I discovered even some of the things I thought I understood were misinformed. Now I feel I understand more clearly. Maybe some others will find watching this to be a good use of an hour. If you watch it, I be curious to hear what you think.

http://www.pinkyshow.org/archives/episodes/080704_raedjarrar/

posted in Progressives - 0 replies

Obama's move to the right

2008-07-08T13:25:39Z

It would seem Obama really is a dyed in the wool democrat...in other words, a panderer to the belief that "liberal" is a dirty word and that dems need to prove their conservativism to the mainstream. This is why they voted for the war..this is why they did nothing when given control of congress and we STILL wait for them to end the war and impeach the dictator Bush.

Obama is now moving to the right in an effort to reassure voters that he is not progressive. The funny thing is he does not need to do this. The republicans are imploding, hundreds of thousands of supporters turned up to see him 16 months ago when he really WAS a progressive..he's already ahead, so why pander? Why move rightward? Who exactly, is he trying to attract?

posted in Progressives - 23 replies

right keeps saying: Bush kept us safe...

2008-07-08T13:13:30Z

I can't believe the insanity of the right..

thinking Bush has kept us safe..

There has not been an attack on US soil.. they argue..

what about the US soliders deaths, not to mention the hundreads of thousand of civilians in Iraq (but i guess they don't matter since they are not one of us)?

and then there are those in othe right..that are wishing for an attack on this soil to get fired up again.

I want to pinch myself to make sure I am not dreaming..

posted in Progressives - 28 replies

my president will be...

2008-07-05T18:37:33Z

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ivaTo6b2F7M

here's another video from feingold:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MfvGsGJ7wWE

posted in Progressives - 1 reply

ON DEADLINE: When race is a multiple choice

2008-07-03T16:05:59Z

It looks like I am definitely not the only mixed "Black" person who
has experience ethnic confusion and confrontation with who I am. this
one press writer has too. It seems that there could be a lot of people
who identify with Barack Obama that way and wondering where do they
fit in,who and what they are. The presidential race forcing them to
redefine or reconfirm their own mixed backgrounds.

I admit that I thought maybe I was being a little nonsensical and even
irrational to feel conflicted about my ethnic identity because of the
presidential race,but after reading this article,I now feel that what
I have experienced is something that is shared by other mixed
people. I feel that what I have expressed are valid concerns and
viewpoints about the mixed "Black" person.

I do wonder how many inter-ethnic relationships have been affected by
the presidential race. I know that mine has.

By ELIZABETH DAVIDZ, Associated Press Writer Thu Jul 3, 3:14 AM ET

WASHINGTON - This presidential election is about more than checking a
box for either a Democrat or a Republican. For me, it's also about
choosing a box that identifies my race.
ADVERTISEMENT

Because I am biracial, I always dreaded those forms that asked you to
check one box only. Are you black? Are you white? Are you Hispanic?
Are you Asian?

For anyone who is like me or Barack Obama, racially mixed, the choice
has always been clear. We would choose the minority box because that
is how the world sees you. To choose the white box was to try to pass
as white, to be ashamed of that drop of blood that makes you dark. To
choose "other" was to have your race not counted at all.

Those forms are gone. But when it comes to race in America, we still
tend to talk about it in terms of black versus white or some race
versus another. In this election, Obama's diverse family has come up
again and again, but in the end we tend to define him one way.

Yes, Obama is black. But he is also white.

Increasingly, families are bridging these divides. People in my
generation who grew up in the '80s, and those younger, may hardly see
interracial families as revolutionary, since the numbers have grown.

But interracial families have been an American taboo since colonial times.

Interracial marriage was once banned in 41 states.

In 1961, when Obama was born to a white woman and a black man from
Kenya, 22 states did not allow interracial marriage. Those
prohibitions fell when the Supreme Court, in 1967, overturned a
Virginia law banning whites from marrying nonwhites.

A year later, when my parents were married in Ohio, it was legal but
not easy.

My mother is white and my father is a dark-skinned man from Indonesia.
My mom's father refused to come to the wedding. A family member told
my mother no one would marry her children because they would be "mutts."

My dad's family, in Indonesia, didn't attend.

I never experienced the tensions in my family surrounding my parents'
marriage. By the time my brother, my sister and I were born, the
family's initial doubts had been put to rest — my grandfather's
included. They showed us nothing but love and acceptance.

Still, it was hard to grow up biracial.

In our small Midwestern community, we never really fit in. Other than
a spattering of Confederate flags and a few KKK's scratched in school
desks, racism was never really the issue. The daily frustration was
ignorance. My siblings and I continually faced the questions.

"Where are you from?"

"Here. Ohio."

"No, where are you from really?"

My brother, my sister and I would exchange stories about what people
thought we were: Hispanic, Jewish, Native American, Mediterranean,
Middle Eastern.

The guesses never got it right. It was clear that even though we were
half white, and culturally white, to be part white was to be not white
at all.

We may have been sheltered in our small town, but what we knew of the
outside world in the '80s through TV, movies and news was that America
was still divided into black and white. The only interracial couples
we knew were the neighbors on the sitcom "The Jeffersons" and the
tragic couples in the musicals "Show Boat" and "West Side Story."

Things got better in the '90s. Biracial celebrities were taking the
stage in sports, TV and in music. Interracial couples started to grace
the screen in happier circumstances. For the first time, I saw
biracial-multiracial boxes and marked them with joy.

In 2000, the U.S. census allowed Americans for the first time to
identify themselves by more than one racial category. Nearly 7 million
did.

And the last state ban on interracial marriage finally fell, an
unenforceable law that had lingered on the books in Alabama.

In that year's presidential election, John McCain faced false rumors
spread during the South Carolina primary that he'd fathered a black
child out of wedlock. In fact, he and his wife, Cindy, had adopted
their daughter Bridget from an orphanage in Bangladesh.

Increasingly, couples like the McCains are adopting internationally.
Since 1990, the number of international adoptions has more than
doubled, to more than 20,000 in 2006.

I have rarely pondered my race in recent years. It wasn't until this
year, with my parent's 40th wedding anniversary and the presidential
election, that I've once again faced the old frustrations, confusions
and emotions.

Looking through my parent's wedding photos and hearing the old
stories, I think about how hard it must have been for them and Obama's
parents. Hearing Obama talk about his white mother and grandparents, I
think about my own.

Reading about his black father and his Indonesian stepfather, I think
of my dad. When I see Bridget McCain's photo, a dark-skinned girl in a
sea of white faces, I think of my own childhood insecurities.

When people file Obama under black and only black, I feel like I am
once again facing those old forms, that chasm between the races. Check
only one box — never mind one parent, half my family, one part of who
I am.

This historic election is about more than black versus white; it is
also about families that fill the in-betweens.

Regardless of who wins this election, if it is McCain or Obama, a
racial milestone will be met. America will have its first interracial
first family in the White House.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE — Elizabeth Davidz is a multimedia producer for The
Associated Press' bureau in Washington. On Deadline is a weekly
political column.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_campaignplus/20080703/ap_ca/on_deadline_biracial;_ylt=AojKZAWSdLZQN1MlLw03mIVsnwcF

posted in Progressives - 0 replies

Declaring Our Independence, Creating the Next Society

2008-07-02T20:31:46Z

In honor of Independence Day, I think it's appropriate to begin a thread focused on the kind of society that we, the people, would like to replace the American Empire after its inevitable collapse. Let's attempt to do our best at keeping the comments constructive, limiting the criticism to the ideas, without moving into ad hominem attacks. What kinds of Revolutionary Ideas do you propose, and can begin to implement, as we turn the corner on the end of an era?

Here, to get us started, is an interesting article I found well worth reading that explores some of the reasons and suggestions for the Next Society:

http://rinf.com/alt-news/activism/creating-the-next-society-your-revolutionary-ideas-needed-now/3988/

>>> It’s fairly obvious to anyone paying attention that the American Empire, as currently configured and operated, is simply not sustainable. Financial collapse is inevitable (and accelerating, it seems), and even mainstream America can no longer deny the obvious signs that things have gone terribly wrong: Skyrocketing fuel prices, unprecedented inflation in food prices, rampant epidemics of preventable degenerative disease, plummeting real estate prices, an increasingly-worthless national currency, disastrous war failures, rampant dishonesty in Washington, and accelerating climate changes that are causing flooding, crop failures, droughts and worse. It is becoming increasingly difficult for even the Pollyannas of the world to argue that the United States of America has a bright future. <<<

<snip>

>>>>Now, those are just my ideas. You may not agree with them all, and in fact I hope you don’t! What we need are YOUR ideas (and other people’s ideas) to be part of the conversation in creating The Next Society. It will soon be time to put the new ideas on the table, throw out the old ideas, and create a new society. Consider: What hasn’t worked? What has worked? What makes sense today that didn’t make sense in 1776? (Like internet voting, for example, which eliminates the entire need for the U.S. Congress, since the whole idea of “representatives” was based on the need for remote representation of people living in far-off places without connectivity…) Does our tax system currently work? Do you like the IRS? If not, what would work better? (The Flat Tax, perhaps?) Does voting work? Not very well. Instant Runoff Voting works much better. Why not implement that in the Next Society?<<<<

posted in Progressives - 0 replies

Kathleen Sebelius

2008-06-30T13:59:50Z

The more I read about Kathleen Sebelius, the more I think that she
would be a very good running mate for Barack Obama. Some people might
think that choosing another woman for a running mate would be a slap
in the face in regards to Hillary Clinton. Some others might think
that having a woman on the ticket could be.

She seems to have a lot of political upside. She's a 6 year
governor,and so she has political executive experience. She was
regarded as one of the most popular governors in the country in 2006.
She's a moderate Democrat and has worked well with Republicans. She
even convinced Kansas Republicans to switch parties in 2006. She
erased a $1.1 billion budget deficit in her first year as governor
without raising taxes. Most of all,she is not at all polarizing which
is something that Hillary Clinton has been viewed as being.

She is a native of Ohio. Her father was a Governor of Ohio,and so even
her father has political executive experience. Her husband is a
federal magistrate judge.

Some say that her downside is no foreign policy experience,but Obama
could just have highly experienced people in cabinet positions like
Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense. Therefore,I don't see how
that would be a problem.

I think that she would not only make a good vice president, but would
make a good president. I believe that she's capable of becoming the
first female President of the United States. I would vote for her.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=b2280f10-7bd0-478d-9f18-ae5e5d184b66
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Sebelius
http://www.governor.ks.gov/about/bio.htm

posted in Progressives - 9 replies

this brave nation

2008-06-30T06:26:56Z

has anyone been keeping us with this series of videos? pretty interesting stuff.

www.thisbravenation.com

posted in Progressives - 0 replies

Honoring 2 great Progressive/Activists/Thinkers.......

2008-06-27T10:51:03Z

You may find it strange that I'm lumping R. Buckminster Fuller and George Carlin in the same thread. But when you look at the work they have left us, they both were incredibly ornery and outspoken activists, each in their own way.

Carlin died last Sunday and it is the 25 anniversary of Fuller's death. For interesting information about both of them, visit...

http://www.democracynow.org/shows/2008/6/24

posted in Progressives - 2 replies

Iran redux

2008-06-26T23:40:46Z

ZNet ZNet

United States and Israel against Iran

Flashpoints Interview

June, 26 2008

By Gareth Porter
and Dennis Bernstein

Source: Flashpoints

Gareth Porter's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace

Dennis Bernstein: We focus on potential war by the United States and Israel against Iran. We're watching that closely. The drums of war are beating again in the Middle East, as we say. And the war that may be brewing between Israel and the U.S. and Iran has the potential to dwarf the consequences of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, as deadly and horrific as that's been. The latest warning sign came in the New York Times reported last Friday that in early June, Israel had carried out a major military exercise. U.S. officials called it "a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran's nuclear facilities." The exercise involved more than a hundred Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters. The same week, Germany's Der Spiegel reported that Israel's leadership has concluded that diplomacy has failed to stop Iran's nuclear program and that military action is unavoidable, a warning that was earlier sounded by the German foreign minister. These ominous developments come after months of escalating threats and charges by the U.S. and Israel against Iran for its actions in Iraq and Lebanon and Gaza and for supposedly pursuing nuclear weapons despite repeated international atomic agency findings to the contrary. Top Bush officials have taken trips to the region, perhaps for military consultations. Andrew Cockburn reports that earlier this year, the Bush administration secretly authorized a sweeping covert action program against Iran, including assassinating officials. And there have been reports in The Asian Times, the Times of London, and by former CIA officer Philip Giraldi that a U.S. strike on Revolutionary Guard camps inside Iran has already been authorized. So is this all for show simply to pressure Iran or is a war really possible?

With us to examine these developments is Gareth Porter. He is the author of Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam. He is a contributor to InterPress News Service, The American Prospect, The Nation, and Salon.com...

Gareth Porter, it is good to have you in the studio... You've done some interesting investigations in terms of what has been leading up to this, and the role that the U.S. is playing with Israel in a potential attack on Iran. In particular, you found out and wrote about how Cheney and his allies actually tried to win approval for strikes against Iran's Revolutionary Guard camps last August. Can you talk about this incident and why there was a little bit of restraint?

Gareth Porter: Right. This is, I think, very important for the simple reason that it does provide a kind of smoking gun evidence, if you will, that this whole unfolding threat to Iran has not been simply a psyops, simply an intimidation operation. We know now for a fact that Dick Cheney did, in fact, propose within the Administration that they attack Revolutionary Guard bases in Iran that were supposedly connected with supplying or training the Iraqi Shiite militiamen coming back to Iraq to fight U.S. occupation forces. And this would be done if and when they could get some kind of concrete evidence that would basically convict the Iranians of some direct involvement in the fight in Iraq.

What we now know is that the Pentagon responded to that proposal very quickly and very strongly by arguing that it's not going to be on to simply go out and launch a so-called limited strike without considering what is going to be the consequence of that in terms of escalation on the Iranian side and then what are we going to do, assuming as they did assume, that the Iranians would in fact respond by targeting probably American bases, American personnel in the Middle East and probably in Iraq. And assuming that, then what would the United States do in response and how far are we going to go up the escalatory ladder?

That was the issue that they raised, according to a former State Department official who went on the record with me: Jay Scott Carpenter. This is the first time that a former Bush administration official had actually gone on the record and said yes, there was in fact not only a Cheney proposal officially within the Administration, but a very important and very high-level debate over that. And the result of it was, in effect, that the Pentagon -- and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were supporting them on this, according to Jay Scott Carpenter. They supported the Pentagon officials who said, "No, we can't do this without figuring out how far we're going to go", and the implication being that we're not going to support an all-out war with Iran, which would -- certainly, the obvious implication that was being drawn from the Cheney proposal, that that's what he really wanted.

Dennis Bernstein: Any sense how close Cheney got to having his way?

Gareth Porter: No, you can't really find out from a single source who was obviously getting this somewhat indirectly, because he was not personally involved in the meetings themselves, just how close we might have come to that. But the impression that I got was that the response was so negative and so strong, and that it was so unanimous within the Pentagon, including the military leadership, that Cheney was really put on the defensive, that he did not have the kind of arguments that he could come back with to basically counter this very strong argument by the Pentagon against his proposal. But what I did point out in my article is that this was the second time that Cheney had been, in a way, checkmated or stopped by the National Security bureaucracy in Washington - if you will, the permanent government - from making moves toward sort of setting up a war with Iran.

The first time was in early 2007. It was in February 2007 - or January/February 2007 - when Cheney essentially ordered the military in Baghdad to put out a briefing that would essentially take the position that Iran had been manufacturing these explosively formed projectiles which were armor-penetrating explosives, which were killing American troops in Iraq. And he was arguing that Iran is really fighting a proxy war by supplying these to the Iraqi Shiite militia. Well, the Defense Department, the State Department, and the NSC all said, "We can't say that. There's no evidence for it. And we've already been through this once with Iraq. And we'll all have egg all over our faces and our credibility will be shot." And so they said no to that. And so it looked like Cheney was checkmated because it went into the interagency process and essentially they sent the briefing back to the authors and said, "Do it again and do it right so that it's consistent with the evidence." Well, this time, in February 2007, Cheney did an end-run around the bureaucracy by getting Petraeus, who was going out to become the top commander in Baghdad of the U.S. forces, to agree that as soon as he arrived, they would, in fact, give that same military briefing that gave the Cheney line that the bureaucrats said no to. And that's exactly what happened. Within 24 hours of Petraeus's arrival in Baghdad and his taking over the command of U.S. forces, that briefing was given. The State Department, I guarantee you, did not know it was coming until two days beforehand.

Dennis Bernstein: Now you're saying then, you are suggesting - or more - that General Petraeus was an active player, that he was a willing partner in what appears to be a Cheney operation or deception

Gareth Porter: Absolutely. There is no doubt in my mind.

Dennis Bernstein: Say a little more about that.

Gareth Porter: Clearly, what happened was that Petraeus, when he got his job, it was on the condition that he would support the Bush-Cheney policy, both in Iraq and with regard to Iran. And that's exactly what happened. When he went out there, from the White House, from the Cheney wing of the White House, to have the military briefers give that briefing, which had been vetoed in Washington.

Now, that was just the first step in this. We later see Petraeus in September of 2007, after he's been out there several months, give an interview with Brit Hume of Fox News Television in which he said - I won't try to put forward the same words that he used - but he said, in effect, that we have been saying to the White House and to CENTCOM that we need to do something about the allegation or reality of Iranian interference in Iraq, implying very clearly that he was supporting the Cheney proposal to attach the Iranian bases, which are connected, supposedly, with that issue.

Dennis Bernstein: And, of course, given the short tenure that he had in Iraq, it gives one the impression that he was really an agent in this process. So he gets in, he does a few things, and then he's kicked upstairs. That was very interesting. Everybody wondered if he was so successful, so effective, The Man, then why did they take him out so fast? But maybe he had a mission.

Gareth Porter: He is not an independent actor. Petraeus is a man who has been sent to Iraq to carry out the policy of the Bush White House, and he will do the same thing on Iran. And that is why his being named to replace, in effect, Admiral Fallon as commander of CENTCOM is so important and why it sets up a situation in which Cheney and Bush can do an end-run around the opponents of war with Iran in Washington.

Dennis Bernstein: And, of course, you take out the unwilling general and you put in the willing general.

Gareth Porter: Exactly. And he's arriving - and this is very important - the timing of his arrival is late summer, early fall. It's going to be August or September. So I think that we can say that the period of maximum danger about U.S. intentions -- which I think that there is a serious possibility that they do intend to attach Iran - it will be after the arrival at CENTCOM in Tampa of General Petraeus in later summer or early fall.

Dennis Bernstein: ...We did hear - and Reese Ehrlich did some significant reporting on what was happening at the border, and the fact that the United States, with Israeli intelligence such as Mossad, were already busy going back and forth over the border. There was a great deal of counterinsurgencies. There are connections between what was going on there and this.

Gareth Porter: If you mean the connection between the Israeli role in Iraq and Iran, of course they're connected in the sense that Israel is very deeply involved in all of the Cheney -Bush policies in the Middle East. There's a very, very close working collaboration across the board, whether it's Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, or other parts of the Middle East. They are very, very closely working together on a common strategy. At least they discuss common strategies. That is not to say that everything Israel does has been planned ahead of time by the White House with the Israelis. In fact, the White House neocons, including Cheney, wanted Israel to go much farther in 2006 than they actually did. They wanted them to take down the Syrian regime instead of stopping in Lebanon. So there's not a perfect correlation, by any means.

Dennis Bernstein: Now following up right on that, that brings us to these recent exercises. The United States reported them as if they were surprises. It's like, oh, they'd better tell the New York Times that Israel did an exercise because they didn't know it was happening. Let's talk about what this exercise has to do with the relationship between the U.S. and their push toward war in Iran. What about this story?

Gareth Porter: First of all, I think we have to see that the purpose of this story -- from both Israeli and Bush Administration point of view - was to implicate the United States more deeply in the Israeli policy, to give the appearance to the world and to the American people that the Bush Administration is speaking, not on behalf of Israel, but speaking with Israel, announcing that this is taking place and giving it their interpretation, in a way that was useful to Israel.

But there's a second point here that I think you also need to keep in mind. That is that Israel is not likely to strike Iran without the direct involvement, militarily, of the United States. The United States will be involved in some way if Israel strikes Iran, whether it's sending American bombers or simply providing the intelligence and other support for an Israel strike. They have to do it with the Americans; they can't do it successfully without the Americans.
From: Z Net - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives
URL: http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/18006

posted in Progressives - 0 replies

This Land Is Their Land

2008-06-17T13:10:22Z

This Land Is Their Land
By Barbara Ehrenreich
This article appeared in the June 30, 2008 edition of The Nation.

June 11, 2008
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/ehrenreich/print

I took a little vacation recently--nine hours in Sun Valley, Idaho, before an evening speaking engagement. The sky was deep blue, the air crystalline, the hills green and not yet on fire. Strolling out of the Sun Valley Lodge, I found a tiny tourist village, complete with Swiss-style bakery, multistar restaurant and "opera house." What luck--the boutiques were displaying outdoor racks of summer clothing on sale! Nature and commerce were conspiring to make this the perfect micro-vacation.

But as I approached the stores things started to get a little sinister--maybe I had wandered into a movie set or Paris Hilton's closet?--because even at a 60 percent discount, I couldn't find a sleeveless cotton shirt for less than $100. These items shouldn't have been outdoors; they should have been in locked glass cases.

Then I remembered the general rule, which has been in effect since sometime in the 1990s: if a place is truly beautiful, you can't afford to be there. All right, I'm sure there are still exceptions--a few scenic spots not yet eaten up by mansions. But they're going fast.

About ten years ago, for example, a friend and I rented a snug, inexpensive one-bedroom house in Driggs, Idaho, just over the Teton Range from wealthy Jackson Hole, Wyoming. At that time, Driggs was where the workers lived, driving over the Teton Pass every day to wait tables and make beds on the stylish side of the mountains. The point is, we low-rent folks got to wake up to the same scenery the rich people enjoyed and hike along the same pine-shadowed trails.

But the money was already starting to pour into Driggs--Paul Allen of Microsoft, August Busch III of Anheuser-Busch, Harrison Ford--transforming family potato farms into vast dynastic estates. I haven't been back, but I understand Driggs has become another unaffordable Jackson Hole. Where the wait staff and bed-makers live today I do not know.

I witnessed this kind of deterioration up close in Key West, Florida, where I first went in 1986, attracted not only by the turquoise waters and frangipani-scented nights but by the fluid, egalitarian social scene. At a typical party you might find literary stars like Alison Lurie, Annie Dillard and Robert Stone, along with commercial fishermen, waitresses and men who risked their lives diving for treasure (once a major blue-collar occupation). Then, at some point in the '90s, the rich started pouring in. You'd see them on the small planes coming down from Miami--taut-skinned, linen-clad and impatient. They drove house prices into the seven-figure range. They encouraged restaurants to charge upward of $30 for an entree. They tore down working-class tiki bars to make room for their waterfront "condotels."

Of all the crimes of the rich, the aesthetic deprivation of the rest of us may seem to be the merest misdemeanor. Many of them owe their wealth to the usual tricks: squeezing their employees, overcharging their customers and polluting any land they're not going to need for their third or fourth homes. Once they've made (or inherited) their fortunes, the rich can bid up the price of goods that ordinary people also need--housing, for example. Gentrification is dispersing the urban poor into overcrowded suburban ranch houses, while billionaires' horse farms displace rural Americans into trailer homes. Similarly, the rich can easily fork over annual tuitions of $50,000 and up, which has helped make college education a privilege of the upper classes.

There are other ways, too, that the rich are robbing the rest of us of beauty and pleasure. As the bleachers in stadiums and arenas are cleared to make way for skybox "suites" costing more than $100,000 for a season, going out to a ballgame has become prohibitively expensive for the average family. At the other end of the cultural spectrum, superrich collectors have driven up the price of artworks, leading museums to charge ever rising prices for admission.

It shouldn't be a surprise that the Pew Research Center finds happiness to be unequally distributed, with 50 percent of people earning more than $150,000 a year describing themselves as "very happy," compared with only 23 percent of those earning less than $20,000. When nations are compared, inequality itself seems to reduce well-being, with some of the most equal nations--Iceland and Norway--ranking highest, according to the UN's Human Development Index. We are used to thinking that poverty is a "social problem" and wealth is only something to celebrate, but extreme wealth is also a social problem, and the superrich have become a burden on everyone else.

If Edward O. Wilson is right about "biophilia"--an innate human need to interact with nature--there may even be serious mental health consequences to letting the rich hog all the good scenery. I know that if I don't get to see vast expanses of water, 360-degree horizons and mountains piercing the sky for at least a week or two of the year, chronic, cumulative claustrophobia sets in. According to evolutionary psychologist Nancy Etcoff, the need for scenery is hard-wired into us. "People like to be on a hill, where they can see a landscape. And they like somewhere to go where they can not be seen themselves," she told Harvard Magazine last year. "That's a place desirable to a predator who wants to avoid becoming prey." We also like to be able to see water (for drinking), low-canopy trees (for shade) and animals (whose presence signals that a place is habitable).

Ultimately, the plutocratic takeover of rural America has a downside for the wealthy too. The more expensive a resort town gets, the farther its workers have to commute to keep it functioning. And if your heart doesn't bleed for the dishwasher or landscaper who commutes two to four hours a day, at least shed a tear for the wealthy vacationer who gets stuck in the ensuing traffic. It's bumper to bumper westbound out of Telluride, Colorado, every day at 5, or eastbound on Route 1 out of Key West, for the Lexuses as well as the beat-up old pickup trucks.

Or a place may simply run out of workers. Monroe County, which includes Key West, has seen more than 2,000 workers leave since the 2000 Census, a loss the Los Angeles Times calls "a body blow to the service-oriented economy of a county with only 75,000 residents and 2.25 million overnight visitors a year." Among those driven out by rents of more than $1,600 for a one-bedroom apartment are many of Key West's wait staff, hotel housekeepers, gardeners, plumbers and handymen. No matter how much money you have, everything takes longer--from getting a toilet fixed to getting a fish sandwich at Pepe's.

Then there's the elusive element of charm, which quickly drains away in a uniform population of multimillionaires. The Hamptons had their fishermen. Key West still advertises its "characters"--sun-bleached, weather-beaten misfits who drifted down for the weather or to escape some difficult situation on the mainland. But the fishermen are long gone from the Hamptons and disappearing from Cape Cod. As for Key West's characters--with the traditional little conch houses once favored by shrimpers flipped into million-dollar second homes, these human sources of local color have to be prepared to sleep with the scorpions under the highway overpass.

In Telluride even a local developer is complaining about the lack of affordable housing. "To have a real town," he told the Financial Times, "Telluride needs some locals hanging out"--in old-fashioned diners, for example, where you don't have to speak Italian to order a cup of coffee.

When I was a child, I sang "America the Beautiful" and meant it. I was born in the Rocky Mountains and raised, at various times, on the coasts. The Big Sky, the rolling surf, the jagged, snowcapped mountains--all this seemed to be my birthright. But now I flinch when I hear Woody Guthrie's line "This land was made for you and me." Somehow, I don't think it was meant to be sung by a chorus of hedge-fund operators.

posted in Progressives - 3 replies

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

2008-06-15T00:52:50Z

http://www.prosecutionofbush.com

Of course if Bush decides to become president-for-life after another huge terror attack hits the U.S., then his procesution for murder would become even more unlikely.

posted in Progressives - 3 replies

Donahue on MSNBC

2008-06-15T00:34:43Z

As we know, Phil Donahue's show on MSNBC -- the network's highest-rated show at the time -- was canceled because the show frequently expressed anti-war sentiments during the time that the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq was about to happen. But these days MSNBC broadcasts Countdown with Keith Olbermann, another show that frequently expresses anti-war sentiments. Yet this show is unlikely to be canceled despite any anti-war sentiments expressed there. With that being the case, I have to again ask why MSNBC won't renew Donahue's show now that opposition to the U.S. occupation of Iraq is popular not to mention the fact that Donahue was right to question the war in the first place?

posted in Progressives - 6 replies

Kucinich is delivering Impeachment Articles against G.W. Bush

2008-06-13T23:38:48Z

A few moments ago, (approximately 7:30 p.m. EDT, 09JUN2008), Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich took to the floor of the House of Representatives to present 35 Articles of Impeachment against George W. Bush. The House session is being televised live on C-SPAN.

posted in Progressives - 9 replies

350: The number the whole world needs to know

2008-06-11T22:15:09Z

http://noimpactman.typepad.com/blog/2008/05/350-the-number.html

current concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere? 380 parts per million.

How much carbon dioxide can our planet safely withstand?

350 parts per million (ppm).

Everyone needs to become aware of this number FAST!

posted in Progressives - 1 reply

The National Conference for Media Reform Videos.....

2008-06-11T13:48:59Z

are on line here....
http://www.freepress.net/conference/video

Many great progressive journalists attended. My hero, Bill Moyers' speech is especially inspiring.

I know information about the conference was on Bill O'Reily's show. But did the conference make news on any of the other corporatist channels?

posted in Progressives - 0 replies

The peaceful exploration of space vs. the violence of warfare on Earth

2008-06-10T20:55:56Z

I'm of the mind that some people -- people who claim to be progressive and anti-war -- hate the space program so much that they would prefer 100 years of war in Iraq to the PEACEFUL exploration of the moon and Mars. I, of course, prefer the peaceful exploration of the moon and Mars to 100 years of war in Iraq. But in today's modern dystopia, I'm definitley in the minority here since the space program is extemely unpopular. And as you may know, "society" general hates any and all ideas that are unpopular.

That brings me to Barak Obama's plans for NASA. In short I think these plans are abysmal. As I recall, he wants to take $10 billion out of NASA's budget and use that money to pay for some sort of preschool education program. This will create a delay or even a cancellation of the Constellation program. "But we don't need to return to the moon. We need to solve our problems on Earth first!" That's a very simple-minded and inaccurate view of the situation. Consider this: NASA's budget (at $17.3 billion a year) is LESS THAT ONE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL U.S. FEDERAL BUDGET. Again I say that NASA's budget (at $17.3 billion a year) is LESS THAT ONE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL U.S. FEDERAL BUDGET. If Obama claims that he opposes the U.S. occupation in Iraq, then he should get the withdrawl done immediately if he becomes president. The savings acquired from withdrawing American military forces from Iraq should be enough to pay for BOTH the preschool education program AND the Constellation program. And with the U.S. military budget being as inconceivably massive as it is (at $500 billion a year or more), reducing the military budget to, say, half of what it is shouldn't have a negative effect on national security (espeically if the military is used for REAL national defense and NOT to fuel the military-industrial-congressional complex). Even cut in half, the U.S. military budget would still be the largest military budget on Earth.

So why would Obama ignore such an obviously simple way to keep NASA on track without effecting social programs? Could it be that he really supports a massive military? If that's the case, then he's not all that different from John McCain. I also believe this issue is connected with Obama's obsession with pleasing everyone (or more specifically, the majority). With the space program being as unpopular as it is, he knows how popular bashing NASA is and how most of the public would support such bashing.

One of the reasons why I support space exploration is because I believe it is a viable alternative to war. If the energy channeled toward warfare and the misery and suffering that it causes were channeled toward space exploration, life on Earth might be improved in many ways. Things like spin-off technologies and access to the unlimited natural reseources of outer space are some ways the space program could improve the lives of people oin Earth. But since space exploration is very unpopular, I suspect that most people will disagree with me on this. But they wouldn't disagree if the space program were popular. Ho ve!

posted in Progressives - 5 replies

Big military=Big government (Duh!)

2008-06-10T20:51:16Z

Despite what some people believe, a big military does equal a big government. Because the military IS PART of the government, and if the military IS BIG, then that means a government that has a big military is ALSO BIG. This is not an attack on those who support a big military. This is only an observation of irrefutable reality. As such, I categorize those who support a big military as also being advocates of a big government. On the other hand, I do believe the Libertarians when they say they want small government. Since they support the abolition of the income tax, and since the removal of the income tax would reduce the size of government, then that means Libertarians are entirely sincere when they say they want small government.

posted in Progressives - 1 reply

Framing the election

2008-06-10T04:20:19Z

If you posit that a successful strategy for winning the presidency rest on framing the campaign, how should Obama frame the debate?

Is “change” from the Bush politics enough; to paint McCain as equivalent to Bush, and Obama as a fresh alternative?

Sounds like it should be enough to win in my eyes, although last time.. I thought America was thirsty for change.

posted in Progressives - 10 replies

Byrd Hospitalized

2008-06-10T01:28:05Z

Spokesman says Sen. Robert C. Byrd hospitalized

Sen. Robert C. Byrd hospitalized after feeling ill at home

Staff
AP News

Jun 02, 2008 21:14 EST

Sen. Robert C. Byrd was hospitalized Monday night at his doctor's urging after suffering from lethargy and sluggishness at the Capitol and, later, at his home, a spokesman for the 90-year-old Democrat said.

Press secretary Jesse L. Jacobs said the West Virginia senator would be in the hospital overnight for observation.

Byrd, who is the longest-serving senator in history, voted during a 5:30 p.m. roll call Monday, then went home. Jacobs said the senator began to feel ill less than an hour later.

He was found to have a fever, and at his doctor's request he was taken to a nearby hospital.

Jacobs added that he didn't know which hospital Byrd was taken to.

Byrd was hospitalized March 5 for tests after a reaction to antibiotics. A week earlier he was hospitalized at Walter Reed Army Medical Center after a fall at home.

Last month, Byrd gave an emotional speech on the Senate floor after hearing the news that Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., had a malignant brain tumor. Kennedy, 76, underwent 3 1/2 hours of risky brain surgery at Duke University Medical Center on Monday, an operation his surgeon pronounced a success.

Byrd has become significantly more frail — and sometimes prone to emotional outbursts — since Erma, his wife of almost 69 years, died two years ago. Earlier this year, rumors swirled that fellow Democrats thought Byrd was too feeble to remain at the helm of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Byrd silenced the whispering campaign with a strong performance at a hearing in April.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Spokesman_says_Sen_Robert_C_Byrd_ho_06022008.html

posted in Progressives - 5 replies

Presidential Race Made Me Confront My Ethnic Identity

2008-06-09T13:18:56Z

This presidential race has gotten me to confront my own ethnic
identity as a multiethnic person. I admit that I have history of
confusion about my ethnic identity and being hard to pin down as
people have thought I was different things whether Pacific
Islander,Puerto Rican or some other Hispanic,Arab,East
Indian,Black/Mexican,and Black/Asian and some. My white mother told me
that when I was first born,she was confused. I didn't look like I had
any black in me,and she knew that she didn't cheat on my black father.
Mom even asked my her stepmother if my father will like me. a lady
said "He looks Filipino" because of my almond shaped eyes and straight
black hair and doctors thought I had jaundice because of my pale
yellow skin at birth. Mom told them that I didn't have jaundice but it
just my ethnic mixture. They tested me any way,and the results were
negative. One old black man told my father "Who are you kidding?
That's not your child." My mother told me that she was relieved when
my skin got darker and hair started getting curls. hahahahaha

I am also having significant problems with the woman that I love who
is white,and so that's an interethnic relationship. Ever since the
presidential race, I felt ethnic tension between her and me as she was
rooting for Hillary to be president. At the beginning, I didn't know
who I wanted to win...I was confused.....I just told her that I don't
care who wins as long as we have a liberal president. Then later on as
I read about Obama and that he was more liberal and that he wanted to
repeal the whole Marriage act(I strongly believe in gay rights because
I have 2 gays in my family...I have been mistakened for gay and was
called gay slurs since high school,and so I ended up sympathizing with
gays and their cause), I started wanting Obama to win.

It was the Reverend Wright fiasco and how it was criticized
negatively by many whites, that I became more passionate to the point
that I stayed up all night research ethnic relations and coming up
with strong argument to back up that ethnic relations isn't all that
great. I felt like my girlfriend didn't understand the black side of
things nor ethnic bigotry, especially when she grew up in New
Hampshire where there is hardly any black people there. I have always
been around the multiethnic,multiculturalism and experienced ethnic
bigotry both as an observer and first hand experience. I understand
both the white and black perspectives. I understand the ethnic bigotry
that some blacks have against whites and I understand the ethnic
bigotry that whites have against blacks. Both attitudes disgust me.

I started attending a unity church recently. The senior pastor is a
black man and the junior pastor is a white woman. The congregation is
multiethnic. It's like the United Nations. I enjoy the ethnic harmony
that is there. It feels like home. It's something that I wish that
would happen everywhere,and I know that it's a dream that won't be
realized in this day and age.

I am coming to the conclusion that I don't want any ethnic label
whether it's Black or Multiethnic. I wish that I can just be seen as
only a human being and that everybody else should just see themselves
as human beings. I believe that I had pastlives as many
ethnicities,and so I don't believe that the soul has an ethnicity. To
me,our souls trancend gender and ethnicity.

But yeah.....whenever somebody asks me what I am, I am just going to
tell them that I am a human being and say no more. When I see forms
that say list ethnicity,I am not marking anything down.

posted in Progressives - 2 replies

Cuba approves free sex-change operations

2008-06-09T00:18:49Z

Cuba approves free sex-change operations

By WILL WEISSERT,
Associated Press Writer

HAVANA - Cuba has authorized sex-change operations and will offer them free for qualifying citizens, an official said Friday. The move is the latest in a series of changes implemented by President Raul Castro since he succeeded his elder brother, Fidel, in February. Raul Castro's daughter, Mariela, heads Cuba's National Center for Sex Education, which strongly backs the new policy.

Health Minister Jose Ramon Balaguer signed a resolution approving sex-change surgery, said an official at the center who spoke on condition of anonymity because the measure has not been formally published. The resolution will be posted on the Internet on Saturday, the official said.

The procedure would be available to Cubans for free as part of their country's health-care system.

The sex education center has said previously that 28 transsexual Cubans have asked to undergo the surgery and that Cuban doctors have trained with physicians from Belgium to prepare for the procedures.

According to the center, a clinic for transsexual health will be created to perform the procedures, but it was not clear when it will start operating.

posted in Progressives - 1 reply

Women and Blacks in Politics

2008-06-08T14:52:50Z

Black men were consitutionally given the vote many
years before women, but schemes throughout the South and intimidation even in
the North kept Blacks from exercising their franchise. When women got the
vote they faced no such obstacles (as long as they were white) for decades
while Blacks who dared to try voting might be lynched.

That's why the 1965 Civil Rights Voting Act was passed

The National Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. § 1973–1973aa-6)[1]
outlawed discriminatory voting practices that had been responsible for
the widespread disenfranchisement of African-Americans in the United
States. Echoing the language of the Fifteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution, the Act prohibited states from imposing any
"voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard,
practice, or procedure... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen
of the United States to vote on account of race or color."[2]
Specifically, Congress intended the Act to outlaw the practice of
requiring otherwise qualified voters to pass literacy tests in order
to register to vote, a principal means by which southern states had
prevented African-Americans from exercising the franchise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act

Women as a whole have accomplished much in politics compared to Blacks as whole. Therefore, women haven't always taken a back seat to blacks in regards to political matters even though Obama has won the Democratic presidential nomination over Hillary Clinton.

Since 1868, 121 African Americans have served in the United States
Congress. This figure includes five non-voting members of the House of
Representatives who represented the District of Columbia and the U.S.
Virgin Islands. In addition, in 1868, one candidate was elected to the
House but was not seated due to an election dispute.

There have been 5 African American senators in history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_in_the_United_States_Congress

There have been 35 women in the United States Senate since the
establishment of that body in 1789, meaning that out of the 1,897
Americans who have served in the United States Senate since that time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_States_Senate

Eighty-nine of the 245 women who have served in Congress are current
Members—74 in the House and 16 in the Senate. In total there have been
210 women Representatives, 28 Senators, and seven women who have
served in both chambers.
http://womenincongress.house.gov/

there have been 29 female governors in history.
there have been 4 black governors in history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_state_governors_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:African_American_governors

posted in Progressives - 1 reply

Voting on the issues

2008-06-07T17:03:46Z

Here is information about rating scores on the issues

in regards to abortion is a woman's right:
McCain is Rated 0
Obama is Rated 100
Hillary is Rated 100
(women that strongly believe in women's rights choose McCain over
Obama, I will be scratching my head a lot)

in regards to gay rights:
McCain is Rated 33
Obama is Rated 89
Hillary is Rated 89
(I'd think Obama would win over most gays)

in regards to church and state separation:
McCain is 33
Obama is 100
Hillary is 100
(I'd think that religious liberals would pick Obama overwhelmingly
over McCain)

in regards to affirmative action:
McCain is 7
Obama is 100
Hillary is 96
(I can see Obama strongly winning the black vote, and I can see why
many working class whites will not vote for him)

in regards to criminal justice:
McCain is 85
Obama is 75
Hillary is 75

in regards to Replace coal & oil with alternatives:
McCain is 17
Obama is 100
Hillary is 100

in regards illegal immigrants earn citizenship:
McCain is 18
Obama is 8
Hillary is 8

I am too liberal to not vote for Obama, and I am a strong believer in
women's rights,gay's rights,and Church/State separation,and so seeing
that McCain is Rated 0 for abortion,33 for gay rights,and 33 for
church/state separation are strong factors in why I wouldn't vote for
him.

According to their voting records, both Obama and Hillary are hardcore
liberals. John McCain is a Populist-Leaning Conservative.

http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

posted in Progressives - 5 replies

Obama on Blackwater-A glaring hint that he isn't going to pull out.

2008-06-07T05:38:04Z

AMY GOODMAN: I want to talk about the future of Blackwater and also the bases here in the United States. But first, let me play for you a little exchange I had with Barack Obama, asking him about Blackwater. He had come to Cooper Union a few months ago to talk about the economy, and afterwards in the rope line, I asked him.

AMY GOODMAN: Would you call for a ban on the private military contractors like Blackwater?

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: I’ve actually—I’m the one who sponsored the bill that called for the investigation of Blackwater in [inaudible], so—

AMY GOODMAN: But would you support the Sanders one now?

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Here’s the problem: we have 140,000 private contractors right there, so unless we want to replace all of or a big chunk of those with US troops, we can’t draw down the contractors faster than we can draw down our troops. So what I want to do is draw—I want them out in the same way that we make sure that we draw out our own combat troops. Alright? I mean, I—

AMY GOODMAN: Not a ban?

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Well, I don’t want to replace those contractors with more US troops, because we don’t have them, alright? But this was a speech about the economy.

AMY GOODMAN: The war is costing $3 trillion, according to Stiglitz.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: That’s what—I know, which I made a speech about last week. Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Barack Obama.

JEREMY SCAHILL: This is interesting. I mean, this is one of the more interesting exchanges I’ve seen with a presidential candidate on this issue. I mean, it almost never gets raised at all.

Barack Obama—this is the reality about this. Barack Obama understands this issue extremely well. His staff has been on top of this for quite some time. He—what he said to you is true. He did introduce the legislation in the Senate that has become the Democrats’ official legislation on these private security companies, and he did it eight months before Nisour Square. So, clearly, Barack Obama is someone who has been following this very closely. He understands it very intimately.

What’s interesting—and you raised this with him—is that he won’t take the step toward actually trying to ban these companies. Representative Jan Schakowsky and Senator Bernie Sanders have put forward legislation called the Stop Outsourcing Security Act in the Congress, and Barack Obama has said he’s not going to come onboard and support that legislation.

Interestingly, when I reported in The Nation that Obama would not support that legislation, which seeks to ban the use of these companies in US war zones, Hillary Clinton, five days before the Texas and Ohio primaries, the day my piece comes out, she responds by putting a statement on her website saying that she’s going to endorse Bernie Sanders’ legislation, and she becomes the single most important US political figure to come out for a ban. Now, I’m glad that Hillary Clinton did that, and I look forward to her making this one of her top legislative priorities after the primary season is over.

But on Barack Obama, he’s in a very complicated situation, because his Iraq plan actually is not a plan to end the occupation of Iraq. It’s to continue it with a different label attached to it. And so, you hear him there talking about how “I don’t want to replace contractors with US troops.” The reality is, and Barack Obama knows this very well, his Iraq plan could not be implemented if he was against the use of Blackwater or other private security forces. And the reality is, he’s probably going to have to use these companies for two to three years at a minimum, unless he makes it an aggressive point of trying to shut them down. He might even have to use Blackwater for the first year of his administration.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/2/blackwater_jeremy_scahill_on

posted in Progressives - 0 replies

It's over

2008-06-06T02:42:14Z

Hopefully everyone can agree that it's finally over (are you listening, Hillary?) & get on with the business of defeating John McCain, cleaning house in the White House, & restoring some hope for America's future.

posted in Progressives - 23 replies

Internal Combustion

2008-06-03T15:19:04Z

According to Edwin Black, author of the book Internal Combustion, Henry Ford and Thomas Edison attempted to bring back the electric car in the 1910s or thereabouts but failed due to sabotage. If they had succeeded, electric cars could've been the norm for the past 80 years. Here are more details:
http://www.internalcombustionbook.com

posted in Progressives - 5 replies

100 percenters

2008-06-03T14:56:17Z

100 percenters -- as former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson explained -- are those who are 100 percent certain that their beliefs are correct. This, of course, means anyone of any ideology can be a 100 percenter. But one of the most widely-known of the 100 percenters is G.W. Bush. Believeing his Iraq policies are 100 percent correct, he (seemingly) will never change his mind on the issue. Unfortunately in this world of imperfect people, 100 percentism (Or is that percenterism?) is dangerous because it disregards the unavoidable reality of human imperfection. It would make sense for a perfect human being to be a 100 percenter. But according to my obviously imperfect knowlwdge, perfect people don't exist. Personally, I blame that in part on the Second Law of Thermdynamics.

Anyway, I have a policy of rejecting 100 percentism. As such, I tend not to believe the words of 100 percenters since they very likely are as imperfect as I am. But then the question is, how do we effectively deal with 100 percenters? My answer to that question is, I don't know. After all, I am imperfect and I am subject to the Second Law of Thermdynamics.

posted in Progressives - 0 replies

Please Check This Out

2008-06-02T05:12:09Z

http://people.tribe.net/f575e7bc-ae6e-4ea0-818a-1b249685c82b/blog/04fb6385-3ec1-4dcc-b336-57f0ba8c4591

I need feedback. Thanks. xo jm

posted in Progressives - 7 replies

Important petition, TV Drug Ads

2008-06-01T20:04:05Z

TV Drug Ads Must Not Gloss Over Side Effects

Target: FDA

Sponsored by: Consumers Union

The FDA is currently debating whether to require a toll-free number and web address on all TV drug ads so we can easily report serious side effects to the agency.
But the FDA commissioner wants to study the idea for two more years. That’s too long! Prescription drug ads in magazines and newspapers already have this reporting information. Why not TV?

The benefits of making it easy to report serious drug side effects are clear:

• Better reporting of side effects will help the FDA do a better job of detecting dangerous drugs on the market sooner. Dangers often emerge only after millions of people start taking a drug.
• A recent poll found that only 7 percent knew how to report serious side effects to the FDA.
• The toll-free number and web address is already required in print drug ads; this would only put it on TV ads, so more consumers would see it.
An FDA panel convened recently to hear testimony on this, but now they need to hear from you.

Please take a minute to tell the FDA panel why it’s important they require a toll-free number and web address on all TV drug ads now!

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/898887837?z00m=15342139

posted in Progressives - 4 replies

Yo, progressives!

2008-06-01T15:03:47Z

It seems that the conversation has gotten a little ... thin ... around here lately. Scott McClellan drops a bombshell of a book -- a progressive's wet dream -- that has everybody talking, but not a peep on this tribe. Just the latest example of this tribe's apparent quiescence. Where's everybody at? Did everyone find something more important to do than taking our country back from the evildoers?

Just wondering...

posted in Progressives - 9 replies

The Pornography of Power

2008-05-31T18:17:47Z

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/30/veteran_journalist_robert_scheer_on_the

posted in Progressives - 0 replies

My Pics this election. (primarily would interest SF)

2008-05-30T00:22:05Z

My Endorsements
I decided this election to write a summery of why I voted or endorsed positions on the ballot. I am doing so because I am frequently asked for advise, and on the fly, I often have a harder time explaining, which I will blame on my ADHD. But on paper, it should be more coherent.
I will start with the state primaries, primarily because it applies to everybody in California.
I am voting No on 98. It is pretty well known by now that it will end rent control for all tenants who are signing a new lease. But it’s even worse than that. This proposition, which so happens to be backed by the very same group that has backed prop 13 of the 1970’s, would eliminate all local controls of land use. Prop 13 had already taken away much of the local control, by forcing local government to get most of their funding from the state and federal government.
98 will also take away protections that are given to mobile home dwellers who already tend to have fewer protections as it is.
98 will eliminate the 60 days required before forcing out tenants.
Lastly, say good-bye to low-income housing, as city’s can no longer make sure that new housing includes low-income housing.
The good news is that it appears that 98 will loose, but I wouldn’t stay home because of that.
Yes on 99. In the event that 98 passes, all that I wrote about 98 will be a mute point if 99 pass. If 99 passes and 98 don’t, it will still end passing property acquired for eminent domain from being passed to private hands.
Next would be San Francisco city measures.
Yes on A. A big problem is retention of good teachers, and there is a high turnover rate in the SF public schools. Low salaries often means good teachers leave for higher paying jobs, while teachers that tend to not be as good stay. Often people who can’t afford private schools do have an unfair disadvantage, Prop A will levy and annual $198 parcel tax and it will be adjusted for inflation.
Yes on B. At first I didn’t like the looks of this, because it would reduce health benefits, but it was negotiated with the unions so that city workers will be able to get other benefits. The primary purpose of B is to cut cost. Oddly, the only people I noticed that are against this law are Republicans.
No on C. This is one of those laws that look great and I was originally thinking of voting for it. C asks if people committed a crime involving “Moral Turpitude” against the city loose their benefits. But it turns out that it includes misdemeanors. Quoting from the San Francisco Bay Guardian, “The US State Department considers "bastardy," "lewdness," "mailing an obscene letter" and "desertion from the armed forces," among other things, to be crimes of moral turpitude.”
It is poorly written, and it needs to go back to the drawing board.
Yes on D. Prop D would make it a policy for the city to reflect diversity on city boards. It should be noted that it is an advisory measure, so any of the usually exaggeration that says this will discriminate against whites is bullshit.
Yes on E. As it stands now, it requires a 2/3’s majority of the Board of Sups to a simple majority to challenge an appointment to the PUC. San Francisco is one of the few strong mayor governments in the west coast, and it often makes the mayor too strong when he or she is in cahoots with special interest, as it often is with most mayors in San Francisco. This will make it harder for the mayor, any mayor, who happens to be cozy with PG&E from being too ambitious.
Yes on F no on G. F will make it such that it will force Lennar, which is making a land grab with measure G to make sure that affordable housing really does go for affordable housing for the Bayview Hunters Point. Measure G, especially without F, will cause many residents of Bayview Hunters Point to be forced out, in a city that even now, is experiencing huge increases in rent.
G will have very little clean up as it claims to. It will build luxury high rise condos, and as stated, will displace the poor.
No on H. I am basing this on both the Bay Guardian and the Green Party. But the logic against it does make sense. It is one of many deceptive measures that doesn’t discuss. It prohibits contractors from donating to the Board of Supes, but the person who really does not negotiations is the mayor, who is unaffected by this measure.
This will also have to go back to the drawing board, as the consequences will turn out not to have the desired effect that most people voting for it would hope to expect.

Now onto elected officials. Nancy Pelosi has always been full of disappointments for San Francisco progressives, and often people who get a representative elected as speaker often find their representative hardly represents them, as has been the case for Pelosi. Pelosi has continually voted for war appropriations and as Speaker and said impeachment is “off the table.” This alone is enough for me to be against her. If she really wanted to make sure that the war is over, all she would need to do is make sure no appropriation get to the floor of the house.
Now people might say that if she didn’t do that she could loose the speakership and somebody else would get it, but that concession means that we no longer have a representative.
Many people do argue that it is late in the game for impeachment; something that is only assuming that the only goal is to kick out GWB when it is just a few months away. But that is beside the point. Impeachments like any other trial, are not just to determine guilt, they also reveal lots of information that often isn’t learned if say nobody doesn’t bother with a trial. It would have revealed much of the damage that Bush and his loyal assholes have created. Fox News would be force to talk about this and even with their grand distortions, won’t be able to conceal everything.
But the real reason I think that Pelosi doesn’t want impeachment is that she and most of the Democrats were just as guilty with the same motivations that would enable an invasion.
San Francisco has a very weak Republican Party, so the logic of a spoiler candidate coming from the left is useless.
So my endorsement on the Democratic Ballot, is to go for Shirley Golub is running making sure that Pelosi is forced to spend money in her own district, that would have gone to another war mongering candidate.
And I didn’t have time to review the Green Party nor the Peace and Freedom Partis but the don’t seem to have cometing candidates. I would vote for the candidates just to make sure that they get a spot on the November ballot.
For State Senate, I had a hard time deciding, but it goes to Leno. Instead of me writing, I think this article does a pretty good explaination: http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/Bay_Guardian_Backs_Leno_Landlords_Move_to_Joe_Nation_5628.html

For Superior Judge 12 I am going for Sandoval, because Mellon is an appointee form a Republican Governor. I should point out that the green party is endorsing either Sandoval or Mallen.

posted in Progressives - 0 replies

Action Group

2008-05-30T00:06:42Z

Invitation to join NEW tribe: ACTION GROUP
http://tribes.tribe.net/actiongroup

If you would like to do serious things to change the world for the better, you are welcome to join .... Action Group ....

There are certain critical issues being carried out by the NWO (9-11, Wars, AIDS, Chem-Bio Trails, etc.) which are so important they can wake up the whole world. Our job is to spread this information. If you are not on for this, don't join.

Go here to join Action Group: http://tribes.tribe.net/actiongroup

~~~~~~~~~
The Big World Gathering is happening now wherever we are by our sharing with others what we really feel and think about life today, and by distributing information we believe is important ~ At a later stage, perhaps soon to happen, all our individual actions may help lead to something quite surprising: a major world change ~ Start today ~~~ The Big World Gathering ~~~ http://worldgathering.net
~~~~~~~~~

Michael Irving
Scotland, British Isles
http://www.worldgathering.net
http://people.tribe.net/michael_irving
http://www.youtube.com/user/worldgathering
http://groups.google.com/group/worldgathering
http://bigworldgathering.blogspot.com
http://rainbowdreamvision.blogspot.com

~~~~~~~~~

posted in Progressives - 0 replies

politics in america?

2008-05-24T13:49:39Z

I got to thinking, after observing the tribe ! * POLITICS * ! for a while..

does that tribe represent polics in America? or politics in general? you know, just focusing on the next quick sensationalist headline? It seems to mimic the talking headshows on TV which is very superficial, in my opinion.

It's discouraging to realize that this may be how most people engage in politics...or perhaps the real political activies is not to be seen here in tribe.

I suppose it's good that people seem interested at all in politics.. as that tribe gets alot of flow.. but leaves alot to desire.. no?

I look at this tribe..even though it is not as busy as the above referenced one, it seems to me that there is more substance here.. or am rushing to judgement?

posted in Progressives - 9 replies

Obama and the psychology of the color barrier

2008-05-22T23:33:50Z

I was reading this,and I found it to be very interesting.

http://tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=76d4881e-d014-4dd6-b732-8adef23f68f4&p=1

Many social scientists had long rejected the possibility that humans
might harbor unconscious attitudes different from their conscious
behavior. But, in trying to explain the persistence of racial
prejudice, political psychologists were forced to hypothesize
different levels of awareness and motivation. On the highest level was
public moral reflection guided by social norms--which led to Trent
Lott being pilloried when he famously said in 2002 that, if Dixiecrat
Strom Thurmond had been elected president, the country could have
avoided "all these problems." Beneath this, however, was a realm of
knee-jerk opinion that might contradict a person's moral reflections;
and still beneath that were unconscious attitudes, which, like a
person's knee-jerk opinions, were often at odds with his or her public
moral reflections. If racial prejudice persisted, it was on these
deeper levels.

Political psychologists devised new tests to uncover these sentiments.
First, they crafted survey questions aimed at unearthing what they
called "symbolic racism," "modern racism," and, most recently, "racial
resentments," which ascribe to blacks as a group certain negative
attributes or undeserved advantages. For example, researchers asked
respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with statements such as
"It's really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if blacks
would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites" or
"Over the past few years, blacks have gotten more economically than
they deserve."

Experimenters then inserted questions like these into the American
National Election Studies (ANES), extensive biennial surveys funded by
the National Science Foundation. The answers revealed a degree of
racial resentment that wasn't apparent from more explicit questions
about racial bias. In 1986, for instance, 59 percent of respondents
agreed that blacks were not trying hard enough (only 27 percent
disagreed), while 67 percent thought blacks should work "their way up
... without any special favors." Psychologists David Sears and Donald
Kinder, as well as others, found that this racial resentment was the
single most important factor--more important than even conservative
ideology or political partisanship--in explaining strong opposition to
a host of government programs that either directly or indirectly
benefited minorities. Of course, that doesn't mean there couldn't be
principled conservative opposition to government-guaranteed equal
employment or urban aid. But, according to the political
psychologists, racial resentment played the largest role in fueling
public skepticism.

The answers also revealed which groups within society continued to
harbor racial resentment. With the help of Harvard doctoral student
Scott Winship, I looked at the levels of racial resentment in ANES
data from 1988, 1992, and 2000 (the questions were omitted in 1996).
What Winship and I found was that resentment was highest among males
rather than females, the middle class rather than the wealthy or poor,
those lacking a college degree, those who worked in skilled or
semi-skilled blue collar jobs or as laborers, and residents of small
towns in the Midwest and South. Does that profile sound familiar? It's
more or less a description of the white working-class voters who have
spurned Obama and with whom John Kerry and Al Gore had trouble. The
only groups that didn't evince racial animosity toward blacks were
voters with post-graduate degrees and, of course, African Americans.
Hispanics were nearly as prejudiced as whites, and a group labeled
"other" that includes Asian Americans was even more so--a partial
explanation, perhaps, for why Obama fared so poorly among these groups
in California. Clearly, racial resentment persisted--just in a more
nuanced form.

This is very interesting too:

Obama's connection with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, which exploded
into the news after the Ohio primary, may do lasting damage to his
candidacy by undermining his attempt to transcend race. Wright's words
tie Obama to the stereotype of the angry, hostile--and also
unpatriotic--black who is seen as hating both whites and white
America. Wright turns Obama into a "black candidate" like Jackson or
Sharpton. And, as a black candidate, Obama falls prey to a set of
stereotypes about black politicians.
Barack Obama

Some of these have to do with abilities. A 1995 study found that
voters believe black politicians "lack competence on major issues."
Other stereotypes relate to ideology. Several studies have shown that
if subjects compare a black and white candidate with roughly equal
political positions, they will nevertheless see the black candidate as
more liberal. Obama is already vulnerable to charges of inexperience,
and, after Wright surfaced, he fell prey to an ideological stereotype
as well. Whereas he benefited in the initial primaries and caucuses
from being seen as middleof-the-road or even conservative, his
strongest support has recently come from more liberal voters. In
Pennsylvania, he defeated Clinton among voters who classified
themselves as "very liberal" by 55 to 45 percent, but he lost
"somewhat conservative" voters by 53 to 47 percent and moderates by 60
to 40 percent. In a national Pew poll, Obama's support among "very
liberal" voters jumped seven points between January and May, while his
support among "moderates" dropped by two points. Since Obama's actual
policies are, on the whole, no more liberal than Clinton's (his health
care plan, for instance, is inarguably more conservative), these
trends strongly suggest that some voters are stereotyping him because
of his race.

If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, he should be able to inherit
the white women who backed Hillary Clinton. As political psychologists
have shown, these voters should be largely amenable to his candidacy.
He should also continue to enjoy an advantage among white
professionals. But Obama is likely to continue having trouble with
white working-class voters in the Midwest--voters who tend to score
high on racial resentment and implicit association tests and who,
arguably, decided the 2004 election with their votes in Ohio. Obama
will also have trouble with Latinos and Asians, groups that score high
on both indexes, and that can be important in states like California.
It's not hard to quantify Obama's problem: If 9 to 12 percent of
Democratic primary voters in swing states have been reluctant to
support him because he is black, one can assume that, in the general
election, 15 to 20 percent of Democrats or Democratic-leaning
Independents may not support him for the same reason.

posted in Progressives - 1 reply

The prophetic anger of MLK

2008-05-22T21:49:11Z

The prophetic anger of MLK
After 1965, the civil rights leader grew angrier over America’s unwillingness to change.
By Michael Eric Dyson
April 4, 2008

ON THE 40TH ANNIVERSARY of Martin Luther King Jr.’s death, few truths ring louder than this: Barack Obama and Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. express in part the fallen leader’s split mind on race, a division marked by chronology and color.

Before 1965, King was upbeat and bright, his belief in white America’s ability to change by moral suasion resilient and durable. That is the leader we have come to know during annual King commemorations. After 1965, King was darker and angrier; he grew more skeptical about the willingness of America to change without great social coercion.

King’s skepticism and anger were often muted when he spoke to white America, but they routinely resonated in black sanctuaries and meeting halls across the land. Nothing highlights that split -- or white America’s ignorance of it and the prophetic black church King inspired -- more than recalling King’s post-1965 odyssey, as he grappled bravely with poverty, war and entrenched racism. That is the King who emerges as we recall the meaning of his death. After the grand victories of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, King turned his attention to poverty, economic injustice and class inequality. King argued that those "legislative and judicial victories did very little to improve" Northern ghettos or to "penetrate the lower depths of Negro deprivation." In a frank assessment of the civil rights movement, King said the changes that came about from 1955 to 1965 "were at best surface changes" that were "limited mainly to the Negro middle class." In seeking to end black poverty, King told his staff in 1966 that blacks "are now making demands that will cost the nation something. ... You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then."

King’s conclusion? "There must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism." He didn’t say this in the mainstream but to his black colleagues.

Similarly, although King spoke famously against the Vietnam War before a largely white audience at Riverside Church in New York in 1967, exactly a year before he died, he reserved some of his strongest antiwar language for his sermons before black congregations. In his own pulpit at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, two months before his death, King raged against America’s "bitter, colossal contest for supremacy." He argued that God "didn’t call America to do what she’s doing in the world today, " preaching that "we are criminals in that war" and that we "have committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world." King insisted that God "has a way of saying, as the God of the Old Testament used to say to the Hebrews, ’Don’t play with me, Israel. Don’t play with me, Babylon. Be still and know that I’m God. And if you don’t stop your reckless course, I’ll rise up and break the backbone of your power.’ "

Perhaps nothing might surprise -- or shock -- white Americans more than to discover that King said in 1967: "I am sorry to have to say that the vast majority of white Americans are racist, either consciously or unconsciously." In a sermon to his congregation in 1968, King openly questioned whether blacks should celebrate the nation’s 1976 bicentennial. "You know why?" King asked. "Because it [the Declaration of Independence] has never had any real meaning in terms of implementation in our lives."

In the same year, King bitterly suggested that black folk couldn’t trust America, comparing blacks to the Japanese who had been interred in concentration camps during World War II. "And you know what, a nation that put as many Japanese in a concentration camp as they did in the ’40s ... will put black people in a concentration camp. And I’m not interested in being in any concentration camp. I been on the reservation too long now." Earlier, King had written that America "was born in genocide when it embraced the doctrine that the original American, the Indian, was an inferior race."

Such quotes may lead some to wrongly see King as anti-white and anti-American, a minister who allowed politics to trump religion in his pulpit, just as some see Wright now. Or they might say that King 40 years ago had better reason for bitterness than Wright in the enlightened 21st century. But that would put a fine point on arguable gains, and it would reveal a deep unfamiliarity with the history of the black Christian church.

The black prophetic church was born because of the racist politics of the white church. Only when the white church rejected its own theology of love and embraced white supremacy did black folk leave to praise God in their own sanctuaries, on their own terms. Insurgent slave ministers such as Gabriel Prosser, Denmark Vesey and Nat Turner hatched revolts against slave masters. Harriet Tubman was inspired by black religious belief to lead hundreds of black souls out of slavery. For many blacks, religion and social rebellion went hand in hand. They still do.

For most of our history, the black pulpit has been the freest place for black people. It is in the black church that blacks gathered to enhance social networks, gain education, wage social struggle -- and express the grief and glory of black existence. The preacher was one of the few black figures not captive to white interests or bound by white money. Because black folk paid his salary, he was free to speak his mind and that of his congregation. The preacher often said things that most black folk believed but were afraid to say. He used his eloquence and erudition to defend the vulnerable and assail the powerful.

King extended that prophetic tradition, which includes vigorous self-criticism as well -- especially sharp words against the otherworldliness that grips some churches. In 1967, King said that too many black churches were "so absorbed in a future good ’over yonder’ that they condition their members to adjust to the present evils ’over here.’ " Two months before his death, King chided black preachers for standing "in the midst of the poverty of our own members" and mouthing "pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities." King struck fiercely at the ugly, self-serving practices of some black ministers when he claimed that they were "more concerned about the size of the wheelbase on our automobiles, and the amount of money we get in our anniversaries, than ... about the problems of the people who made it possible for us to get these things."

Obama has seized on the early King to remind Americans about what we can achieve when we allow our imaginations to soar high as we dream big. Wright has taken after the later King, who uttered prophetic truths that are easily caricatured when snatched from their religious and racial context. What united King in his early and later periods is the incurable love that fueled his hopefulness and rage. As King’s example proves, as we dream, we must remember the poor and vulnerable who live a nightmare. And as we strike out in prophetic anger against injustice, love must cushion even our hardest blows.

Michael Eric Dyson is a professor of sociology at Georgetown University and the author of 16 books, including the just-published "April 4, 1968: Martin Luther King Jr.’s Death and How It Changed America."
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/suncommentary/la-oe-dyson4apr04, 1, 1626213.story

Jeremiah Wright is viewed as being racist and Anti-American???? Man.....Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said similar things. Does that make him racist and Anti-American?
I don’t think so.

Raymond

posted in Progressives - 13 replies

Pat Tillman's Mother's Book

2008-05-22T18:14:48Z

She's on Democracy Now! today. It's so dreadful - seeing this mother speaking, you can see that iron has entered her soul. She is determined to expose the truth about what actually happened to her son four years ago. Also heartbreaking is the testimony by Pat's younger brother, Kevin.

http://www.democracynow.org

posted in Progressives - 0 replies