Help these Progressives in their campaigns!

Dennis Kucinich is running for re-election to his House seat in Ohio’s 10th District.  Please donate to his campaign.

http://www.kucinich.us

Cindy Sheehan is running to unseat Nancy Pelosi in California’s 8th District.  She needs your help to remove the failed speaker.

http://www.cindyforcongress.org

Anthony Pollina is running for governor of Vermont on the Progressive Party ticket.

http://www.anthonypollina.com

Also on the Progressive Party ticket in Vermont is state attorney general candidate Charlotte Dennett, who vows to prosecute the shrub for murder.

http://www.charlottedennettforattorneygeneral.com

Thomas Hermann, an Iraq war veteran running on an anti-war platform, is another Progressive — he’s running for the U.S. House of Representatives.

http://www.votepeacevt.com/home.shtml

Ralph Nader is running for president again.  I’m not voting for him, for reasons I’ll explain later, but I do support his message.

http://www.votenader.org

Cynthia McKinney is running for president on the Green Party ticket.  She, more than Nader, perhaps has the organizational power to make some kind of impact in November.  She isn’t going to win, obviously, in this rigged system — but enough votes may begin to help build the Green Party further.

http://votetruth08.com

Please donate whatever you can to these progressive candidates.

Are politicians moving too slowly to accomplish too little?

Cross-posted from Progressive-Independence.org.

From an article by John Browne at Asia Times:

Last week, US Treasury secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke faced congressional leaders with a reported forecast that we are “literally days away from a complete meltdown of our financial system”. Apparently, the politicians were stunned into a long silence.

If citizens across the country could glimpse the horror seen by the congressmen (of which we have long warned), then widespread panic would truly be the order of the day. In particular, people will be shocked to see how Paulson’s seemingly vast request to congress for some $1 trillion is utterly dwarfed by the likely problem.

Later in the article:

If the economy moves into a severe recession and then depression, default rates will explode. These, in turn, will cause stock markets to implode, as they did in 1929. In addition, the US dollar is likely to plummet, driving up the trade deficit in the longer term. Considering these factors, many of which the government prefers to hide, things look bad – very bad.

The thing is, most Americans seem to oppose any bailout of Wall Street whatsoever.  U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein was inundated with communications from constituents demanding that she vote against giving any of their tax dollars to Wall Street, according to the Kansas City Star:

Feinstein’s office has heard from about 50,000 constituents since Congress began considering a financial rescue plan about a week ago – and “only one of a thousand supports it – whatever it is,” the California Democrat said.

Lawmakers from both parties reported similar confusion and concern among constituents as they spent their Saturday painstakingly, and sometimes painfully, trying to craft a still-elusive compromise package.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell aimed to have a final plan ready by 6 p.m. Sunday, in time for the opening of markets around the world.

But House Republicans, whose objections derailed a deal reached last week, warned they did not want any rush to judgment.

And:

The senator tends to side on most issues with Democratic liberals and moderates, but her feedback from home was similar to what conservatives were hearing. “People call us and say they’re really against bailing out fat-cats. That’s a big issue,” she said.

“We’ve heard from hundreds of people who say, ‘We pay our bills. Why can’t Wall Street pay theirs?’ ” said Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said his office had received 3,500 calls in recent days “and just 95 said they supported what we’ve done so far.”

Republicans have apparently been revolting against their own party’s dictator in the White House, seemingly out of a desire to finally look as though they oppose big government interference in the market system — earlier this month, the feds took lending giant Fannie Mae back under their control and also seized its counterpart, Freddie Mac.

Whether this is really the case is up for debate; it could all be a ploy to extend the financial crisis so as to force Democrats in Congress to cave in and write another blank check.  My gut, however, tells me there’s genuine fear that a bailout not crafted to give taxpayers at least partial ownership of the financial institutions in return for a bailout would create a massive backlash at the polls come November.

At any rate, once the bailout does go through (no matter what form it takes), shall it be enough?  According to at least one American economics writer and the foreign press, we’re already in the throes of an economic depression that began months ago.  Considering the massive U.S. debt already being passed on to an incalculable number of future generations, adding another trillion or so dollars to it doesn’t seem as though it’ll solve the problem we now face.

What do the major party VP nominees add to the tickets?

What exactly was the point of last week’s announcements for vice presidential picks?  On one hand we have a shell of a candidate promoting “change” but doing everything in his power to establish himself as an establishment candidate, picking a Washington, D.C. insider with a record of corporate whoring and unquestioning support for U.S. imperial policy.  Small wonder Barack Obama is either neck-and-neck with or trailing John McCain in the polls; he insists on turning off the very people he needs to put him over the top, including the Clinton supporters.  On the other hand we have the Republican candidate picking a “hockey mom,” with even less political experience than his Democratic counterpart (the very thing he chides his rival for), just so he can pander to the bloc of Clinton supporters inclined to vote for McCain out of spite.

In all the hype and bluster, though, one important question remains: what does either VP pick actually add to the ticket?  Joe Biden, a typical DLC insider with a hawkish foreign policy record and a habit of voting for bills that hurt working Americans, is just the sort of candidate likely to further alienate progressives — the very people Obama needs to put him over the top against McCain.  Assuming progressives will get behind the Democratic nominee simply because he and his followers choose to deny any other alternative exists has always been a recipe for disaster.  Just ask Al Gore and John Kerry.  Obama has done everything he can to blow this election by turning off all those who put their faith and hopes in him thinking he represented a departure from the DLC.  Picking Biden, though it allows for a tough yet compliant attack dog in the general election who makes up for a perceived lack of experience, really does nothing for the Democratic nominee’s chances.

Then there’s Sarah Palin.  I get that she was tapped to be McCain’s veep because of her youth and sex, but those are really the only two things she has going for her as a candidate.  As Michael Moore explained to Keith Olbermann the other night, McCain’s cynical pander is based on the assumption that American women are stupid — that they’ll vote for a woman because of her gender and not her politics.  Her record and positions are typically extreme right-wing: opposed to abortion rights, opposed to gay marriage, supports tax cuts for the wealthy and police state thuggery, among other horrendous policies.  None of those qualities, however, have won a presidential election — not for the past sixteen years, anyway (the last two were rigged, so they cannot be counted on as legitimate examples of right-wing extremism winning anything).  Women who actually care about their reproductive rights and are offended by Stepford wife-type politicians may be galvanized to vote against McCain and his so-called “hockey mom.” There’s also her firing of Alaska’s public safety director, Walter Monegan, for refusing to fire her former brother-in-law. This scandal is so outrageous there that the Alaskan legislature is investigating what the Washington Post is dubbing Palin’s own “trooper-gate.”

This may be the first time since George H.W. Bush lost to Bill Clinton that a Republican candidate blew an election by dubious virtue of being dumber than his Democratic counterpart, but don’t count McCain out yet; there are plenty of caging lists, hackable electronic voting machines, and bought state secretaries with which to steal this election, along with a Democratic rival who insists on replaying the Kerry campaign.

An open letter to Barack Obama

Mr. Obama:

   As one of the relatively few people in this country who saw through your act early on, and for the right reasons, let me first say how utterly ashamed I am to call myself a registered Democrat.  You are a disgrace not only to the party at large, but to the thousands — perhaps, dare I say — even millions of Americans who were and remain so desperate for someone to come and rescue our once-great nation from the fascists that they placed their hope and faith in you.  Hang your head in shame, and then look me straight in the eye and don’t turn away until I’m done.

   According to an article in New York Magazine, the electorate has had about enough of you.  A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has you running in a statistical dead heat with Republican John McCain, FiveThirtyEight.com’s poll doesn’t look good for your chances either, and Zogby has your GOP counterpart five points ahead.  Are you trying to blow this election for us?!?  Because it sure as hell seems as though you are.

   The NY Magazine article gives several reasons for your pathetic performance thus far, but it left out the most obvious: not only your consistent refusal to fight back against the smears of the far right and its tired old champion for this election cycle, but, most importantly, your deliberate alienation of your own political party’s base.  Time and again, you have demonstrated that you do not represent Americans on any issue of importance, and voters realize this.  Long before you secured the Democratic Party nomination to be the ringer candidate against the election sham’s already-chosen victor, you were taking positions including (but in no way limited to):

   That’s just off the top of my head, nor is it the most worrisome reason for your refusal to campaign like someone who wants to win.  I have a friend named Dave who has worked on numerous Democratic political campaigns, including yours.  He is witness to the stupid things you’ve got your people in critical states such as Ohio doing, such as:

  • Failing to even install a working telephone system in your Lakewood, Ohio, campaign office,
  • Sending your people out to register voters — REPUBLICAN-leaning ones at that — whom you MUST know will NEVER vote for you, and
  • Deliberately avoiding mentioning that it was under the presidency of Bill Clinton that average American incomes were higher, while it was under the shrub that those same incomes fell.

   This isn’t rocket science, Obama; it’s politics.  You’ve been in the proverbial game long enough to know this.  You seem hellbent on losing this election, and you need to explain why to those who placed their faith and hopes in you before you dash them just a little over two months from now.  It’s that, or pull your head out of your rear orifice and start trying to win this thing.  This race has never been, nor shall it ever be, about you; it’s about this country and the people in it, and turning back from the precipice of fascist empire your predecessors have brought us all to.

   That’s all I have to say to you, Obama.  You have your choice to make, though I am certain you made it long ago.  Just know this: no matter what happens in November, you’ll still be comfortably employed, while the rest of us will have to continue suffering the conservative policies you support.

Sincerely,

Archangel M

More Gun Nuttery

The state of Texas, ever the testing ground for horrendously bad policy, has in one of its school districts decided to allow teachers to carry guns in the classroom.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080815/ts_nm/texas_guns_dc

<font size=4>Texas school district to let teachers carry guns</font&gt

Fri Aug 15, 3:32 PM ET

HOUSTON (Reuters) – A Texas school district will let teachers bring guns to class this fall, the district’s superintendent said on Friday, in what experts said appeared to be a first in the United States.

The board of the small rural Harrold Independent School District unanimously approved the plan and parents have not objected, said the district’s superintendent, David Thweatt.

School experts backed Thweatt’s claim that Harrold, a system of about 110 students 150 miles northwest of Fort Worth, may be the first to let teachers bring guns to the classroom.

Thweatt said it is a matter of safety.

“We have a lock-down situation, we have cameras, but the question we had to answer is, ‘What if somebody gets in? What are we going to do?” he said. “It’s just common sense.”

Teachers who wish to bring guns will have to be certified to carry a concealed handgun in Texas and get crisis training and permission from school officials, he said.

Recent school shootings in the United States have prompted some calls for school officials to allow students and teachers to carry legally concealed weapons into classrooms.

The U.S. Congress once barred guns at schools nationwide, but the U.S. Supreme Court struck the law down, although state and local communities could adopt their own laws. Texas bars guns at schools without the school’s permission.

(Reporting by Jim Forsyth in San Antonio; writing by Bruce Nichols in Houston, editing by Vicki Allen)

Here’s an accompanying link courtesy of SmirkingChimp.com:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/16482

Nearly any time we put on any kind of public event, the NRA would send its hired-gun “PR firm,” the Mercury Group, to stake out our press conferences, report releases, or fundraisers with their camerapeople. And just like Bill O’Reilly’s ambush producers, they would try and disrupt the event by shouting leading questions based on studies from their favorite researchers. Quite often they would yell things like, “Considering John Lott’s study that the availability of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens reduces crime, why do you . . . ?” And then the president of our organization, at the time a savvy guy named Bob Walker, would have to sidetrack the issue at hand in order to point out how Lott’s studies had been discredited by legitimate academic researchers, and that, as Matt Bai of Newsweek once wrote, Lott had “been shown the door at some of the nation’s finest schools.”

After a TV appearance, Lott once chased my immediate boss down a hallway, shouting at her that she’d have “blood on her hands.” He has been famously exposed as his own sock-puppet. He logged onto Amazon.com under a pseudonym, “Mary Rosh,” and gave his own books five-star ratings, claiming that Lott was “the best professor I ever had.” But what do you expect from a guy who has published articles that claim that crime goes up when there are more black officers on a city police force, and that allowing teachers to carry concealed handguns in schools will deter school shootings?

How much do you want to bet that the Harrold Independent School District based its decision in large part on the basis of Lott’s deceptive and unsubstantiated claims?  Here’s another bit from the Smirking Chimp column:

You see, no matter how much the NRA spends each election season to tilt the scales, or how many politicians whose offices it can “work right out of” (as it said about Bush in 2000), all it takes is one loon with a lot of firepower, and the NRA retreats back inside its bunker and offers “no comment.”

When 58-year-old Jim Adkisson got tired of all the liberals he felt were taking away jobs and wrecking society, he allegedly loaded up with 76 shells and a shotgun he bought at a pawnshop and headed for a liberal Unitarian church in Knoxville, Tenn., to shoot it up. It’s the sort of crime the NRA, months from now, will argue that could be prevented “if you let law-abiding citizens carry guns to church.” I’m sure even Mary Rosh would agree.

Anyone care to disagree?

4° Celsius rise in temperatures could spell our doom.

According to climate scientist Bob Watson, we need to prepare for an increase of 4° Celsius in global temperatures.

The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world’s coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world’s most productive farmland. The world’s geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth’s carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die.

Watson’s call was supported by the government’s former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, who warned that “if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase”. This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane – a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years – captured under melting permafrost is already under way.

To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6°C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.

It’s downright frightening when you consider that the fossil fuel industries will never allow such reforms as mentioned in the article to come to pass.  That’s why it is imperative that we take back this country; relying on the dubious support of Democrats isn’t enough.  We need solutions, and we need them twenty years ago.

THANK you, Eric Boehlert!

If you haven’t read Smirking Chimp writer Eric Boehlert’s excellent column regarding the shameless double standard in media coverage of John McCain, now is the time to do it.  There are some grammatical errors, but beyond those, the piece does a superb job of pointing out the tepid criticism of just one of the Republican candidate’s endless series of lies — compared to its record of pouncing on nearly everything, no matter how innocent, uttered by Democratic candidates as pathological deceptions.  Boehlert systematically dismantles the new Lie being promulgated that the media has somehow “turned” on McCain.

Barack Obama does not support the return of the Fairness Doctrine.  He should, if for no other reason than it would place some restraints on media goons who play favorites during electoral cycles.  Please use the comment feature for ideas on how we can get the Democratic candidate to change his mind.
EDIT: Some jerk at Smirking Chimp thought it would be funny to get the thread I cross-posted there shut down, so I am upset to report that there is no discussion of how to pressure Obama to support the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine allowed there. Please feel free to discuss ideas here, or at my forum. Thank you.

Cannibal Democrats

Allison Kilkenny wrote one of her typically brilliant columns over at Huffington Post regarding the increasingly Republican-like cultishness being displayed by far too many Democrats.

Instead of shunning those who criticize Obama’s handling of FISA and offshore drilling, or those individuals who are considering voting for Ralph Nader come November, Democrats should address the causes of these symptoms of anger and mistrust within their own party, all of which stem from an ideologically sick candidate, who has begun to play fast and loose with his principles.

These disillusioned Democrats aren’t traitors, and don’t deserve the burden of the unfair and immature dismissal: “Well, ENJOY President McCain, asshole!” Such digressions are why Democrats are forever on the defensive and the Republicans, year-after-year, are permitted to set the agenda. Democrats have an identity crisis and continue to publicly shun their brand as the progressive, peace-loving party. Worse than trying to mimic Republicans, now the party has turned cannibalistic and Democrats are attacking Democrats. Obamaniacs hate the Nader Raiders, and the Nader Raiders resent the fact that they feel ostracized for being too liberal and too progressive…whatever those labels mean nowadays.

A party is only as good as its ideas, and if the Democrats turn into the two-dimensional cartoon characters on FOX news, the screaming idiots that shout sound bites at each other from across the table, then they might as well sculpt their hair into humorless coifs, throw crucifixes around their necks, and call themselves Neo-Conservatives.

Just some food for thought.

Obama blinked.

According to Yahoo News, Barack Obama backed away from an earlier challenge from McCain to debate.

WASHINGTON – Democratic candidate Barack Obama on Saturday backed away from rival John McCain’s challenge for a series of joint appearances, agreeing only to the standard three debates in the fall.

In May, when a McCain adviser proposed a series of pre-convention appearances at town hall meetings, Obama said, “I think that’s a great idea.” In summer stumping on the campaign trail, McCain has often noted that Obama had not followed through and joined him in any events.

Obama’s reversal on town hall debates is part of a play-it-safe strategy he’s adopted since claiming the nomination and grabbing a lead in national polls. Advisers to the Illinois senator, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss strategy, say Obama is reluctant to take chances or give McCain a high-profile stage now that Obama’s the front-runner.

This is just plain unacceptable.  Obama’s crafty enough to know that whether you’re playing chess or political games, sometimes you have to risk losing in order to win.  Other times you simply need to make a move.  It’s another lost opportunity, for it represented a chance for a gifted orator to show up an opponent who can’t even display publicly an understanding of his own policy proposals.

No wonder the Democrat can’t close the gap.  This was the latest round in a political game of chicken, and Obama swerved when he should have remained steady.  If he’s going to remain this timid, the media is going to help McCain walk all over him by November.

There’s got to be something we can do about this.