Month: May 2007

A conservative think-tank has found “proof” that single motherhood among immigrant women is contributing to the downfall of the United States.

By Priscilla Huang, NAPAWF

Last month, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), a conservative anti-immigrant think-tank, released a study seeking to debunk one of President Bush's favorite comprehensive immigration reform taglines: "family values don't stop at the Rio Grande." CIS sought to disprove the "myth" that immigrants are especially committed to their families and therefore bring strong family morals to the country.

So what did the study point to as "proof" that there's no such thing as "immigrant family values?" It pointed to the high rate of single motherhood among immigrant women. The study, entitled, "Illegitimate Nation: An Examination of Out-of-wedlock Births Among Immigrants and Natives" takes a critical look at immigrant women (particularly Latinas) and frowns on the "bad" reproductive choices they've made.

Here are some of their findings:

 

• Hispanic immigrants have seen the largest increase in out-of-wedlock births—from 19 percent of births in 1980 to 42 percent in 2003. This is important because Hispanics account for nearly 60 percent of all births to immigrants.

 

• There's no indication of improvement over the generations. Among natives, the illegitimacy rate is 50 percent for Hispanics, 30 percent for Asian/Pacific Islanders, and 24 percent for whites.

 

• 2003 is the first time that the absolute number of illegitimate births to Hispanics (immigrant and native) outnumbered illegitimate births to blacks (immigrant and native).

 

• Illegitimacy also can be measured by the share of unmarried women who give birth. One out of every 12 unmarried immigrant women had a baby in 2003; for natives it was one out of 25. For Hispanic immigrants it was one in seven.

 

• The high levels of out-of-wedlock births among native-born Hispanics also suggest that cultural factors play a significant role in explaining high illegitimacy in that group.

 

• Our efforts to strengthen families must now take into account the impact of immigration on this growing national problem.

 

Interestingly, the entire study is based on the premise that giving birth as an unwed woman is bad, while giving birth as a married woman is good. This is the same principle that has driven the conservative's decades-long movement to push marriage as the solution to a host of social problems including decreased welfare dependency and promiscuity. However, as reproductive justice advocates, we recognize that "family" comes in many shapes and sizes, and that marriage does little to "fix" the underlying factors that cause poverty.

Notably, the study also cites Daniel Patrick Moynihan's infamous 1965 report, "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action," which attacked the matriarchal structure of poor African-American families and proposed military enlistment for young black men as the solution to the "deterioration of the Negro family." Both the Moynihan report and the CIS study assume that nuclear family structures are the ideal standard and both dismiss alternative family structures—particularly those that are headed by single or unmarried women—as morally destructive and socially deviant.

In addition, it's important to note the more underhanded reason that the CIS study compares the out of wedlock birth rates of immigrant women to that of African-American women: to divide communities of color on the immigration debate. The sexual and reproductive decisions of women of color have always come under scrutiny, and the United States (along with many countries in the Global North) has a long history of trying to control the fertility of low-income women of color. As such, women's bodies have long been the political battleground for oppressive policy-making. Immigration reform is no different.

If reproductive justice means, as it does at NAPAWF, that women and girls have the right to make well-informed decisions about their bodies, health, sexualities, families, and communities, then we must ensure that feminist viewpoints are inserted loud and clear in the immigration debate. As the Senate continues debate on its compromise immigration bill—which proposes to remove most family-based categories for immigration, a process that has allowed most immigrant women to enter the U.S.—immigrant women may lose all hope of reuniting with their loved ones.

As the study suggests, immigrant motherhood is also seen as a national security threat. Conservatives view immigrant women's wombs as the gateway to anchor babies and so-called "chain migration." (Let me be clear that chain migration IS a myth; the average immigrant sponsors just 1.2 family members to the U.S.) Some liberal groups have also become critical of immigrant women of reproductive age because of the fear that immigrant families will trigger overpopulation. Yet the underlying concern in both camps is that immigrant women, on average, give birth to more children than non-immigrant women and therefore threaten to overcome the country's slowing (white) population. In an effort to deter immigrant women from giving birth, Congress has responded to these fears by introducing bills that would deny birthright citizenship, a right conferred by the 14<sup>th</sup&gt Amendment, to the children of undocumented women.

Clearly, immigrant rights and immigration reform are reproductive justice issues. We must stand together and ensure that all women, regardless of their citizenship status, have the ability to make healthy reproductive and life choices.

(For more on this perspective and an anti-violence take on the meaning of family, check out the Women of Color blog.)

*I host a radio show in San Francisco called Your Call and post about it when relevant.

Senator Hillary Rodhman Clinton is in California on a two-day trip raising money for her presidential bid and picking up endorsements. As most media coverage continues to focus on the sound bites and staged speeches, we’re focusing on records and money trails. On today’s Your Call, we’re beginning our On the Record series. What are the voting records of presidential candidates? Where are they getting their campaign contributions? Who’s making the decisions behind the scenes? We’re kicking off our ongoing series by taking a look at the record of the only woman running for President: Senator Clinton.
For the next year and a half, hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent to get your vote. The presidential primaries are nearly seven months away, but the spin, the inside the beltway analysis, and the staged soundbites are drowning out candidate’s records. When candidates leave behind their consultants, they make declarations they can’t take back. Their votes.

Over the next four months, Your Call will have ‘On the Record’ shows to look at candidate’s voting records. Each month, we will highlight three of the 20 candidates running for president.  Today we’re talking about the only woman in the race: New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Since her election to the senate nearly 7 years ago, Senator Clinton has voted more than 2,000 times.  They include a vote for the war in Iraq, a vote for the Patriot Act, and a vote against its extension.

According to a Washington Post analysis, Senator Clinton has voted with a majority of her Democratic colleagues 97.2% of the time. She opposed John Roberts and Samuel Alito’s nominations as chief justice, supported increased funding for embryonic stem cell research, and supported a bill to expand oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico.

The ACLU has given Senator Clinton a lifetime score of 74%
Human Rights Watch – 89%
Plannd Parenthood – 100%
Secular Coalition for America – 100%
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees – 88% – in November, 2005, she approved a tax bill to extend tax cuts primarily aimed at the wealthy
United States Public Interest Research Group – they work to preserve the environment, and protect consumers – 90% – in June, 2005, she voted no on an amendment to increase auto gas milege standards – in September, 2005, she voted against an amendment to strip subsidies for the nuclear, coal, gas, and oil industries from the Senate energy bill
Darfur Scores – a project of the Genocide Intervention Network – A+
Public Citizend – 90% – voted yes on a free trade agreement with Oman

Her most significant vote was for the Iraq war. The New York Times is out with a lengthy piece about Senator Clinton’s war votes.

What does Senator Clinton’s voting record say about what she would do as President?

In addition to focusing on voting records, we’ll also discuss campaign contributions. Senator Clinton is currently traveling up and down the state of California raising money for her war chest. As of the latest filings with the Federal Election Commission, which date from the first quarter of 2007 (January to March), she was in the lead with a $36 million war chest, shattering previous records for funds raised at that stage of a campaign, with hefty sums coming from large financial firms, lawyers and lobbyists.

We’ll also discuss Senator Clinton’s inside circle of consultants, campaign managers, and fundraisers.

Today’s guests:

Michael Tomasky, editor of the Guardian USA, the American focused wing of the British newspaper, the Guardian. Before joining the Guardian he was the editor of American Prospect, and from 1995 to 2003 he was chief political columnist of New York magazine.  He is author of “Hillary’s Turn: Inside Her Improbable, Victorious Senate Campaign.”  

Ari Berman, a contributing writer for The Nation and a Puffin Foundation writing fellow at The Nation Institute. Berman’s latest article, “Hillary Inc.,” is about Senator Clinton’s campaign ties to big business.

From Democrats.org:

Bill O’Reilly: But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the
far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you’re a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say you’ve got to cap with a number.

John McCain: In America today we’ve got a very strong economy and low unemployment, so we need addition farm workers, including by the way agriculture, but there may come a time where we have an economic downturn,
and we don’t need so many.

[crosstalk]

O’Reilly: But in this bill, you guys have got to cap it. Because estimation is 12 million, there may be 20 [million]. You don’t know, I don’t know.
We’ve got to cap it.

McCain: We do, we do. *I agree with you.*

It’s near the end.

I’m a white, male kind of a guy and I was raised in a Christian family. And I just don’t give a shit about whether or not I get to be part of some white, male, Christian ‘power structure’. Now, considering that Hispanics are predominately Christian and the fact that illegal immigration is heavily biased towards people of the male variety, I can only see this as a problem with skin color and, to some degree, language.

So, O’Reilly is really saying that he wants to protect the status quo which favors white people, people that happen to be, at the same time, guys, and has some advantages for Christians of the non-brown variety.

It’s a fairly naked appeal for a society that white, male, Christians can dominate. And it is pretty revealing that O’Reilly is so vexed about the demographic changes and immigration policies that threaten that wonder bread and miracle whip reality of his idealized childhood in the Long Island ‘burbs.

Now, when I was growing up Catholics suffered a good degree of discrimination, although much less than in the years before I was born. And an infusion of 12 million mostly Catholic people would ordinarily be seen as a positive development because it would increase the power of Catholics within the ‘power structure’. But, not so, if they happen to be of the non-white type. O’Reilly’s appeal is nakedly racist.

Now, I know that a lot of white people get uncomfortable when they see people congregating in parks, playing soccer and volleyball, and looking and sounding a little different. Trust me…it will be okay. Xenophobia is an ugly and distasteful emotion and should be suppressed.

In the meantime, how many more Republican candidates want to pander to this shrinking demographic of anxious, white dudes?

And what will the ladies say?

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane & My Left Wing

click to enlarge
With whispers expressed through a bullhorn, Fred Thompson seems to be running for President. Undoubtedly this will energize the Republican base and certainly it will make it more difficult for Pelosi, Reid and the Defeat-o-crats to get the issue of the war solved. Unless there is a tidal shift on the left, the 2008 election will be up for grabs by either party.

But, and there is always a “but,” but there is yet another “known unknown,” to use a Rumsfelding term, for the progressive political side and it is Al Gore. If Gore gets in to save us from the GOP and the Clintons, it will be an interesting race, especially between two Southerners, two former Senators from Tennessee.

Below is a sample – all too representative – of quotes by Democrats and bills supported/introduced by Democrats relating to Israel, in particular its aggression against Lebanon last year and the ongoing occupation of the Palestinians, compared with reports and quotes by reputable witnesses and human rights NGOs describing the reality on the ground.

The Democrats’ views of the conflicts are written in italics. The reality is presented in plain text.

Compare and contrast.

“We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs.”

– Sen. Barack Obama

“Gaza is dying. The Israeli siege of the Palestinian enclave is so tight that its people are on the edge of starvation…A whole society is being destroyed. There are 1.5 million Palestinians imprisoned in the most heavily populated area in the world.”

– Patrick Cockburn

“As Americans we are humbled by Israel’s commitment to civic engagement and open debate, free expression and the rule of law, even in the face of grave dangers.”

– Sen. Hillary Clinton

“The Shin Bet security service will thwart the activity of any group or individual seeking to harm the Jewish and democratic character of the State of Israel, even if such activity is sanctioned by the law”.

– the Shin Bet (see also here and here)

“Until and unless Hamas renounces violence and terror, and abandons its position calling for the destruction of Israel, I don’t believe the United States should recognize Hamas, nor should any nation in the world.”

 Sen. Hillary Clinton

‘Israeli forces carried out frequent air and artillery bombardments against the Gaza Strip [in 2006], often into densely populated refugee camps and residential areas. Some 650 Palestinians, half of them unarmed civilians and including some 120 children, were killed by Israeli forces. This toll was a threefold increase compared with 2005.’

– Amnesty International, 2007 Annual Report

“Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons…The Iranian president’s statements such as his description of the Holocaust as a myth and his goals to wipe Israel off the map indicate that Iran is serious about its threats…Once Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel’s neighborhood much more volatile…To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table.”

– Sen. John Edwards

“While, feeling under threat from Iran and others, Israel is not likely to discard its nuclear-weapon capability except as part of a peace settlement, it could help to reduce tension, as is now asked of Iran, by joining Iran and all other states in the region in a commitment to suspend and renounce any fuel-cycle activities…We assume Israel has 200 nuclear warheads. Stop the work in Dimona…The best way to guarantee security is a WMD free zone.”

– Hans Blix, Chairman of the WMD Commission. See also here for a list of threatening statements, far more credible than the Ahmadinejad misquote, made by U.S. and Israeli officials against Iran.

“Today, instead of an economy, the Palestinians have a tin cup…Yet who do they blame? The United States, Bush, Olmert, Abu Mazen, the P.A., the Arabs, the Quartet, the weather, the New York Yankees — anyone and everyone except Hamas.”

– Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.)

“[If the boycott is ended, the Palestinians] will offer a promise from Hamas and Fatah of a total cease-fire with Israel, including a complete halt to Qassam [rocket] fire and suicide bombings”

– Hamas (Israel rejected the offer)

“I stand firmly with the people of Israel and their government as they defend themselves against these outrageous attacks. The kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and missile attacks against Israeli citizens are unacceptable and cannot be tolerated.”

– Sen. Russ Feingold

“Since the abduction of Gilad Shalit, and more so since the outbreak of the Lebanon war, the Israel Defense Forces has been rampaging through Gaza — there’s no other word to describe it — killing and demolishing, bombing and shelling, indiscriminately…In the last two months, Israel killed 224 Palestinians, 62 of them children and 25 of them women. It bombed and assassinated, destroyed and shelled, and no one stopped it. No Qassam cell or smuggling tunnel justifies such wide-scale killing. A day doesn’t go by without deaths, most of them innocent civilians.”

– Israeli journalist, Gideon Levy

‘Resolved, That the Senate–<>

(1) reaffirms its steadfast support for the State of Israel;

(2) supports Israel’s right of self-defense and Israel’s right to take appropriate action to deter aggression by terrorist groups and their state sponsors;

(3) urges the President to continue fully supporting Israel as Israel exercises its right of self-defense in Lebanon and Gaza;
(4) calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Israeli soldiers who are being held captive by Hezbollah or Hamas;

(5) condemns the Governments of Iran and Syria for their continued support for Hezbollah and Hamas, and holds the Governments of Syria and Iran responsible for the acts of aggression carried out by Hezbollah and Hamas against Israel;

(6) condemns Hamas and Hezbollah for exploiting civilian populations as shields and locating their military activities in civilian areas;

(7) urges the President to use all available political and diplomatic means, including sanctions, to persuade the governments of Syria and Iran to end their support of Hezbollah and Hamas;

(8) calls on the Government of Lebanon to do everything in its power to find and free the kidnapped Israeli soldiers being held in its territory, and to fulfill its responsibility under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 (adopted September 2, 2004) to disband and disarm Hezbollah;

(9) calls on the United Nations Security Council to condemn these unprovoked acts and to demand compliance with Resolution 1559, which requires that Hezbollah and other militias be disbanded and disarmed, and that all foreign forces be withdrawn from Lebanon;

(10) urges all sides to protect innocent civilian life and infrastructure and strongly supports the use of all diplomatic means available to free the captured Israeli soldiers; and

(11) recognizes that thousands of American nationals reside peacefully in Lebanon, and that those American nationals in Lebanon concerned for their safety should receive the full support and assistance of the United States government.’

– Senate Resolution 534, passed unanimously on July 18, 2006. The bill condemned Hamas and Hizbullah, making no mention of Israeli crimes.

‘Israeli forces pounded buildings into the ground, reducing entire neighbourhoods to rubble and turning villages and towns into ghost town, as their inhabitants fled the bombardments. Main roads, bridges and petrol stations were blown to bits. Entire families were killed in air strikes on their homes or in their vehicles while fleeing the aerial assaults on their villages. Scores lay buried beneath the rubble of their houses for weeks, as the Red Cross and other rescue workers were prevented from accessing the areas by continuing Israeli strikes. The hundreds of thousands of Lebanese who fled the bombardment now face the danger of unexploded munitions as they head home…The Lebanese government estimates 31 “vital points”, for example water and sewage treatment plants, power stations, airports etc., have been totally or partially destroyed. More than 25 fuel station and 900 commercial enterprises were hit. The number of residential properties, offices and shops completely destroyed exceeds 30,000. Two government hospitals – in Bint Jbiel and Mais al-Jebel – were completely destroyed in Israeli attacks and three others were seriously damaged…

The evidence strongly suggests that the extensive destruction of public works, power systems, civilian homes and industry was deliberate and an integral part of the military strategy, rather than “collateral damage”‘. [my emphasis]

– Amnesty International, on the other hand, did.

‘Resolved, That the House of Representatives–

(1) reaffirms its steadfast support for the State of Israel;

(2) condemns Hamas and Hezbollah for engaging in unprovoked and reprehensible armed attacks against Israel on undisputed Israeli territory, for taking hostages, for killing Israeli soldiers, and for continuing to indiscriminately target Israeli civilian populations with their rockets and missiles;

(3) further condemns Hamas and Hezbollah for cynically exploiting civilian populations as shields, locating their equipment and bases of operation, including their rockets and other armaments, amidst civilian populations, including in homes and mosques;

(4) recognizes Israel’s longstanding commitment to minimizing civilian loss and welcomes Israel’s continued efforts to prevent civilian casualties;

(5) demands the Governments of Iran and Syria to direct Hamas and Hezbollah to immediately and unconditionally release Israeli soldiers which they hold captive;

(6) affirms that all governments that have provided continued support to Hamas or Hezbollah share responsibility for the hostage-taking and attacks against Israel and, as such, should be held accountable for their actions;

(7) condemns the Governments of Iran and Syria for their continued support for Hezbollah and Hamas in their armed attacks against Israelis and their other terrorist activities;

(8) supports Israel’s right to take appropriate action to defend itself, including to conduct operations both in Israel and in the territory of nations which pose a threat to it, which is in accordance with international law, including Article 51 of the United Nations Charter;

(9) commends the President of the United States for fully supporting Israel as it responds to these armed attacks by terrorist organizations and their state sponsors;

(10) urges the President of the United States to bring the full force of political, diplomatic, and economic sanctions available to the Government of the United States against the Governments of Syria and Iran;

(11) demands the Government of Lebanon to do everything in its power to find and free the kidnapped Israeli soldiers being held in the territory of Lebanon;

(12) calls on the United Nations Security Council to condemn these unprovoked acts and to take action to ensure full and immediate implementation of United Nations Security Council 1559 (2004), which requires Hezbollah to be dismantled and the departure of all Syrian personnel and Iranian Revolutionary Guards from Lebanon;

(13) expresses its condolences to all families of innocent victims of recent violence; and

(14) declares its continued commitment to working with Israel and other United States allies in combating terrorism worldwide.’

– House Resolution 921, passed by the House 410-8 on July 20, 2006. It made no criticisms of Israel’s conduct in the Lebanon war and neglected even to call upon Israel to display ‘restraint’.

“In the 34-day war which broke out on 12 July, after Hizbullah’s military wing crossed into Israel and attacked an Israeli patrol, killing three Israeli soldiers and capturing two others. Israeli forces carried out air and artillery bombardments, killing nearly 1,200 people in Lebanon, including hundreds of children. Israeli forces also destroyed tens of thousands of homes and commercial properties, mostly in south Lebanon and in the suburbs of Beirut; and targeted and damaged main roads and bridges throughout the country. Hizbullah missiles fired into Israel caused the deaths of 43 civilians and damaged hundreds of buildings.

In the course of the conflict Israeli forces committed serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, including war crimes. In particular, Israeli forces carried out indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on a large scale. Israeli forces also appear to have carried out direct attacks on civilian infrastructure intended to inflict a form of collective punishment on Lebanon’s people, in order to induce them and the Lebanese government to turn against Hizbullah, as well as to cause harm to Hizbullah’s military capability…

In the final days of the war, after the terms of the ceasefire had been agreed, Israeli forces launched hundreds of thousands of cluster bombs containing up to 4 million bomblets into south Lebanon. The million or so unexploded bomblets that were left continued to kill and maim civilians long after the end of the war. Some 200 people, including tens of children, had been killed or injured by these bomblets and newly laid mines by the end of the year. Despite repeated requests, Israel did not provide detailed maps of the exact locations where its forces launched cluster bombs to the UN bodies mandated to clear unexploded ordnance.” [my emphasis]

– Amnesty International, 2007 Annual Report

“We will support [Israel’s] efforts to send a message to Hamas, Hezbollah, to the Syrians, to the Iranians, to all who seek death and domination instead of life and freedom”

– Sen. Hillary Clinton, speaking at a rally in New York City in July, 2006.

“In Lebanon, we covered entire villages with cluster bombs, what we did there was crazy and monstrous”.

– An IDF commander, describing exactly how Israel delivered its “message” to Hizbullah.

‘Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress–

[snip]

(2) congratulates the residents of Jerusalem and the people of Israel on the 40th anniversary of the reunification of that historic city;

[snip]

(4) commends Israel for its administration of the undivided city of Jerusalem for the past 40 years, during which Israel has respected the rights of all religious groups;’

– Excerpt from a bill recently introduced by Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.).

‘Confirms in the clearest possible terms that all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel to change the status of the City of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties, transfer of populations and legislation aimed at the incorporation of the occupied section, are totally invalid and cannot change that status’.

– UN Security Council Resolution 298, cited in the July 2004 World Court advisory opinion, which ruled that, “[a]ll these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.”

And so on and so on. Even as everyone from the Red Cross and B’Tselem to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the UN have documented Israeli war crimes and systematic violations of international humanitarian law in detail, the Israeli state has enjoyed virtually unqualified bipartisan support in the U.S. Unfortunately, this looks set to continue, despite the ongoing collective punishment and ethnic cleansing in the Occupied Territories.

This amounts to support for and complicity in war crimes. The Democrats must end their support for Israeli oppression and brutality, and bring their policies back in line with the law. No party with a record of advocation of state terrorism and gross human rights abuses as consistent and sustained as that detailed above can legitimately call itself “progressive” – or, indeed, anything other than morally barbaric. A change in Israel’s behaviour is going to have to be brought about from the outside, and realistically that means from the U.S. It is therefore imperative that the Democrats progress beyond the current unconditional cheerleading for Israel, which will only lead to yet more unnecessary suffering.

Cross-posted at The Heathlander

Chuck Schumer doesn’t have any control over who our presidential nominee will be, but he does have a responsibility for recruiting candidates to run for the 21 Republican-held senate seats that are up for re-election in 2008. And I have some advice for him.

1) The Democratic Party needs a message that can resonate in the south, the prairie states, and the mountain west because that is where the vast majority of the Republican held seats are located. Insofar as possible, the message should be unified so that it works in all regions, but there may be differences in emphasis. It should also be consistent with core Democratic values. The party suffers when it tries to be all things to all people and forgets to stick up for its core constituents. Meeting all these somewhat divergent requirements is a difficult task and begs for a transcendent campaign that moves beyond the kind of blue/red strategies that have been employed in the last two presidential elections. It will help if Barack Obama is our nominee. It will prove extraordinarily difficult if Hillary Clinton is our nominee. Regardless, it must be attempted.

2) Some of the successful memes from the ’06 elections will be available for re-use. Corruption and ethics continue to plague the Republicans and will be an important factor in the Alaska and New Mexico races. We should poll test a truly progressive platform of election and lobbying reform to see how it plays. What do people in Oklahoma and South Carolina think about publicly funded elections and free television time for candidates?

3) Not a few Republicans have left the party during the Bush years over issues like Terri Schiavo, unilateral foreign adventurism, too much religiosity, and the deterioration of civil liberties. With seats up in Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado, there is a real potential to reach out to libertarians. The dual message is that we will keep the government out of their bedrooms and out of their private information and correspondence. The model here is Jon Tester’s response that he didn’t want to weaken the Patriot Act, but get rid of it.

4) Another major weakness of the Bush era is in the core competence of government agencies. Nowhere was this more evident than in the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina. We have to defend seats in Louisiana and Arkansas, and we are challenging seats in Mississippi and Alabama. Our candidates should emphasize the importance of confirming well qualified people to run FEMA, the Army Corp of Engineers, the EPA and other agencies. This also ties into the politicization of the Justice Department, and other departments.

5) Competing in red states requires a somewhat macho message on military affairs. But this doesn’t mean pandering about how big, bad, and mean our military should be. Bush has so weakened our military forces that our message should be about fixing a broken system, making sure the guards and reserves are not abused in the future, improving veteran’s services and benefits, etc.

6) As part of an appeal to restore governmental competency, we need to emphasize the importance of science as both part of public education and public policy.

7) Finally, we need to use a populist appeal. The wealth disparity in this country is reaching pre-Depression levels. People feel as if they are getting ripped off. History has proven that we cannot compete in the south without an economically populist message…although the corporatist line works well nationally in the suburbs and exurbs. If we are going to break through in places like Tennessee and North Carolina, we need to talk directly to people that have been losing ground in the global economy.

So, how does this relate to candidate recruitment? On one front, it makes candidates like former astronaut Jay Buckey in New Hampshire and Nobel Laureate Dr. Peter Agre in Minnesota more appealing. (As an aside, physicist Bill Foster is running for Dennis Hastert’s seat). Recruiting scientists, rather than lawyers, into the Senate is good politics and good for policy.

On another front, it will not do to recruit more candidates like Pryor and Landrieu, that are corporate lackeys and soft on civil liberties. The message needs to about preserving the American way of life, bolstering the middle class, and creating effective, responsive, and ethical government. We need stark contrasts, not Republican-lite candidates that fold in response to terror talk, waffle and pander on core Democratic values, and vote the Wal-Mart party line.

In some cases, a candidate can be recruited for the specific vulnerabilities of an incumbent. This is certainly the case in New Mexico, where former USA Attorney John Kelly is ideally suited to take on Pajama Pete Domenici and in Oklahoma, where Andrew Rice is perfect for taking on the religious extremist, Jim Inhofe.

Whomever we recruit, they should attempt to stick to a core narrative. Effective and responsive government, less income disparity, more upward mobility, a dedication to science, commitment to civil liberties and privacy…

In short? Making America work again.

Because no one does the GWOT like we do the GWOT!

(Catchy slogan, eh Booman? Maybe we should banner it?)

And where should GWOT news start than with your favorite terrorist torture center detention facility, Guantanamo Bay!

A Saudi detainee at Guantánamo Bay has been found dead in an apparent suicide, authorities at the US prison camp have said.

“The detainee was found unresponsive and not breathing in his cell by guards,” the military said in a brief statement, which did not identify the prisoner or say exactly how he died. He was pronounced dead “after all lifesaving measures had been exhausted”, the statement added.

I don’t know what he was so depressed about. We treat these guys like kings, after all. I hear from reliable sources they get gourmet food and better amenities than at the Ritz-Carleton, for goshsakes! Then again, maybe it was probably just another act of asymmetrical warfare against the American people. I don’t know why we can’t just kill em all and end this threat to America, once and for all.

Well, moving on, it seems we’re finally making progress with the Iraq Army. Why they are even conducting joint operations with Muqtada al Sadr’s Mahdi Army, in a sure sign of progress in Iraq:

(cont.)

The Haqq Agency posted a video of an alleged joint operation between an Iraqi Army unit and the Mahdi Army at the border of the predominately Sunni district of Fadhil in central Baghdad. The video clearly shows a member of the army unit wandering around and using his cell phone to film Iraqi soldiers and gunmen in plainclothes, who he refers to as members of Jaish Al-Imam (the army of the imam). The blurry video, which is dated May 10, 2007, is possibly filmed at the neighboring Shi’ite-majority Abu Saifain district, southeast of Fadhil.

The cameraman addresses the soldiers by their first names (Basim, Maitham, Azhar, Hameed), and he is apparently familiar with the militiamen, as they smile back at him while they reload their weapons in preparation for the assault on Fadhil. He repeatedly shouts a Shi’ite slogan, “Ali wiyak, Ali,” which means “May Ali be with you,” in reference to the first Shi’ite imam Ali bin Abi Talib, the nephew and son-in-law of the prophet Mohammed, as the gunmen and militiamen spray the street with bullets. In another instance, he shouts “Ali yinusrak ‘ala ahl al Fadhil, al manaweech,” meaning “May Ali grant you victory over the residents of Al-Fadhil, the bastards.”

Makes you wonder why the US military suspects the Mahdi Army in that Green Zone kidnapping of five British citizens on Tuesday.

BAGHDAD, May 30 — Scores of U.S. troops descended on the vast Shiite district of Sadr City in Baghdad late Tuesday and early Wednesday, residents there said, searching several houses in what appeared to be an intense hunt for a British financial consultant and four British bodyguards abducted Tuesday.

The five were taken from a Finance Ministry building by dozens of men dressed in police uniforms as the consultant, who works for the American firm BearingPoint, delivered a lecture under a contract with the U.S. Agency for International Development, a U.S. Embassy official said.

The Mahdi Army militia loyal to anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has its stronghold in Sadr City, but a spokesman for the cleric said the militia was not involved in the kidnappings.

“It has been a known fact for some time that the Interior Ministry police, security units and forces are corrupt, are penetrated,” Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told BBC radio Wednesday, saying he suspected the Mahdi Army of involvement in the abductions.

I just bet Iran is behind all this. I don’t know why we stop pussy footing around with those crazy mullahs and just bomb the crap out of them, sooner rather than later. I mean, if it’s good enough for John Podhoretz …

In a column called “The Case for Bombing Iran: I Hope and Pray that President Bush Will Do It,” Podhoretz calls for the US to attack now. He writes:

“The plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual use of military force–any more than there was an alternative to force if Hitler was to be stopped in 1938.

“Since a ground invasion of Iran must be ruled out for many different reasons, the job would have to be done, if it is to be done at all, by a campaign of air strikes. Furthermore, because Iran’s nuclear facilities are dispersed, and because some of them are underground, many sorties and bunker-busting munitions would be required. And because such a campaign is beyond the capabilities of Israel, and the will, let alone the courage, of any of our other allies, it could be carried out only by the United States.”

Because if we don’t stop Iran now, by 1939 2008 they’ll be invading Poland! And who wants that in that kind of distraction in a Presidential election year?

Meanwhile, our ally Turkey is just begging us to take stronger action against terrorists in Iraq, so they don’t have to:

Turkey’s military massed more troops and tanks on the border with Iraq Thursday as the country’s military chief said he was ready to stage a cross-border offensive to fight Kurdish guerrillas. […]

He complained about what he said was a lack of help from allies in fighting the Kurds as Turkish leaders publicly asked the United States and Iraq to destroy and scatter rebel bases inside Iraq. […]

“It is obvious that Turkey does not receive the necessary support in its fight against terrorism,” Buyukanit said at an international security conference in Istanbul. “I should state clearly that there are countries which directly or indirectly support PKK terrorism. We feel truly saddened because of this.”

Oh, wait. The Kurds are our allies, too! How embarrassing. Just forget that entire story, please. It obviously has little if any importance to Our Dear Leader’s eventual triumph in the central front in the War on Terror, which I’m sure will be accomplished any day now.

President George W. Bush would like to see a lengthy U.S. troop presence in Iraq like the one in South Korea to provide stability but not in a frontline combat role, the White House said on Wednesday.
[…]

Iraq’s neighbors have raised concerns about the possibility of the United States maintaining permanent bases in Iraq, and some U.S. lawmakers have said they think the Iraqi insurgency may have been fueled by perceptions the United States wants a permanent presence in the country.

Washington has consistently denied wanting permanent bases in Iraq.

Because we won that Korean War thing, didn’t we?

Well that’s all for now folks! It’s another grand day for terrorist hunting. Who knows what new successes in the GWOT the dawn will bring?

ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FL — Bill Dillow wanted to make a statement in his St. Johns County front yard. So he put up a sign.

“I thought somehow I ought to get a voice in what’s going on,” Dillow said.

The large; sign he erected in the middle of his front yard reads “Iraq War Toll 3466.” That’s the number of American troops killed in Iraq. He put the sign up last month and 135 soldiers ago. He’ has changed the number every time another soldier dies. […]

The WWII and Korean War veteran has also lowered his flag to half staff. He says if the flag is lowered when a president dies, it should also be lowered for soldiers. […]

Dillow says he’ll keep the sign up until all the American troops come home.

Iraq

War on Terror

George W. Bush

Mahdi Army

Iraqi Army

Guantanamo Bay

Like some aging pop star, Blair is on his “Farewell Tour”. This week he is in Africa. On Thursday he goes to South Africa and on Tuesday dropped in to Libya to sell some arms to his old mate Gaddafi, in the name of the War on Terra you understand.

It is his Wednesday stopover that should be noted tho as it goes towards understanding why he got involved in Iraq. It is in Sierra Leone where he has his greatest popularity, wildly so. He was installed with the honorary title of Paramount Chief and was greeted with the sort of welcome that Rumsfeld must have imagined Bush would have in a “liberated” Iraq
A quick word about Sierra Leone history. Freetown, the capital, was established as a colony for liberated slaves by British philanthropists in 1787, a bit like the American establishing of Liberia.

The current President,  Ahmad Tejan Kabbah, was elected in 1992 but there followed a series of coups and a bloody civil war. Kabbah was ousted from power by any army revolt in 1997 but was reinstated a year later by a West African intervention force. By 2000, the civil war had still not finished and many had been disabled by punishment amputations of limbs. The rebellions were financed in part by illegal diamond sales – the so-called blood diamonds. A BBC correspondent based in the country continues the story.

When Britain sent a battalion of paratroops – just 800 men – to Sierra Leone in May 2000, they came not as peacekeepers but, in effect, as combatants.

They backed the democratically elected government, whose army had fallen into decay and disarray, against a rebel army with a record of recruiting child soldiers, terrorising civilians and chopping off limbs.

British troops were welcomed in the capital, Freetown, and given popular credit for saving the city from another brutal rebel invasion.

Prime Minister Tony Blair remains wildly popular here.

For the British rebuilt the government armed forces, bringing discipline, guns, and expertise – sufficient to end the war not by negotiating a peace, but by winning it; by driving rebel forces out.

The British are still here, though in radically reduced numbers, and their guiding hand remains vital.

The Department for International Development remains the biggest single foreign donor.

It is an irony not lost on generations of Sierra Leoneans that the country, nearly 50 years after independence, is now looking to the old colonial master for leadership and protection.

BBC

There was even at one stage a political movement to return to the status of a British colony, even 50 years after independence.

Here then we can see the third in a series, after Bosnia and Kosovo, of successful military interventions where limited fighting had brought relative peace and stability. We then see the multi-national forces going into Afghanistan with again very little military opposition. Here though was perhaps the start of the delusion as that victory was effectively gained by the US buying off the warlords who anyway controlled most of the country outside the capital.

With these apparent successes behind him, what more natural for Blair to believe that once more the formula could be used to rescue the benighted people of Iraq from the yoke of Saddam’s oppression?

Which raises the question of whether he ever did believe that there were WMD there. To be honest, my own view is that he was, indeed convinced that Saddam had those stocks or at least the intent of building them. I am pretty sure this belief was only “faith based” and that it was not based on any convincing evidence. In any case, the removal of Saddam was the main motivation, despite having to present a case for regime change which, on its own, was neither a legal cause for war not likely to convince Parliament or the UN to sanction one.

McClatchey has a tragically hilarious piece on Lieberman’s trip to Iraq. You have to read the whole thing to fully understand just how ridiculous it makes Lieberman look. Here are the basics.

Lieberman went to Iraq, put on a flak jacket and a helmet that made Michael Dukakis look like Douglas MacArthur, by comparison. Then Joe went shopping for sunglasses in a ‘bustling’ market. Then he declared that we are making progress.

Then Joe sat down to talk to the troops.

Spc. David Williams, 22, of Boston, Mass., had two note cards in his pocket Wednesday afternoon as he waited for Sen. Joseph Lieberman. Williams serves in the 82nd Airborne Division from Fort Bragg, N.C., the first of the five “surge” brigades to arrive in Iraq, and he was chosen to join the Independent from Connecticut for lunch at a U.S. field base in Baghdad.

The night before, 30 other soldiers crowded around him with questions for the senator.

He wrote them all down. At the top of his note card was the question he got from nearly every one of his fellow soldiers:

“When are we going to get out of here?”

The rest was a laundry list. When would they have upgraded Humvees that could withstand the armor-penetrating weapons that U.S. officials claim are from Iran? When could they have body armor that was better in hot weather?

You get the idea. But check this out.

Next to him, Spc. Will Hedin, 21, of Chester, Conn., thought about what he was going to say.

“We’re not making any progress,” Hedin said, as he recalled a comrade who was shot by a sniper last week. “It just seems like we drive around and wait to get shot at.”

But as he waited two chairs down from where Lieberman would sit, Hedin said he’d never voice his true feelings to the senator.

“I think I’d be a private if I did,” he joked. “It’s just more troops, more targets.”

And the culminating graf.

As Lieberman walked out, he said that congressionally mandated withdrawal would be a “victory for al-Qaida and a victory for Iran.”

“They’re not Pollyannaish about this,” he said referring to the young soldiers he ate lunch with. “They know it’s not going to be solved in a day or a month.”

It isn’t clear whether Williams mentioned the last line on his note card, the one that had a star next to it.

“We don’t feel like we’re making any progress,” it said.

Everyone that visits Iraq and says anything other than it is a hopeless quagmire just comes off looking like a fool. It doesn’t help anyone politically. Warhawks should just stop doing it.

Bloomberg

At times, Secured Funding salesmen broke the rules, according to at least three lawsuits filed last year in federal courts in St. Louis and Milwaukee. The plaintiffs accuse Secured Funding of accessing their credit reports without permission for the purpose of sending them unsolicited loan offers.

In one case, Secured Funding sent the plaintiff a “personalized Platinum Equity Card” offering “$50,000 or more in cash” just for calling Secured’s toll-free telephone number. In the other two lawsuits, Secured sent bogus $75,000 checks that reassured the recipients their “Less Than Perfect Credit Is OK!” Afghani says the firm was blasting consumers with as many as 4 million pieces of mail a month.

In answers to the complaints, Secured Funding denied wrongdoing. The company said it followed federal regulations when accessing “consumer reports” to pitch customers.

Lakers and Limos

Secured Funding’s attorney in the lawsuits, Richard Gottlieb of the Chicago office of Dykema Gossett PLLC, resigned in April, citing “irreconcilable professional differences” with Secured Funding. Gottlieb declined to comment.

This is a fascinating overview of the combination of greed, regulatory laxness, and financial insanity that made the real estate bubble possible.