Media Smoke-out

When people think of Vietnam, they usually think of the tremendous loss of life, both of American troops and of Vietnamese. They think of Agent Orange. They think of unrecognized veterans. Some think of tropical jungles and tigers. But a few will remember the acts of the Buddhist monk, i.e. self-immolation, and how the American public reacted to the news of holy men burning themselves to death to protest the war. Unfortunately, many of those who recall the public's reaction work for the media and in our government.

On November 3, 2006, a resident of Chicago named Malachi Ritscher believed he could rekindle the American public's outrage at an unjust war and he chose the method that had worked so well for the monks of Vietnam. At 6:30 a.m., Ritscher chose his sacrificial place, dowsed himself with fuel and burned himself to death. Haven't heard? That's because the American media, beginning with the local media in Chicago took it upon themselves to say nothing. It is only now that the truly progressive media broke the story, that Ritscher is getting the attention for which he had so hoped.

It may dismay some to know that the media would act to censor such a potent story. However, we should think of Ritscher's act in another way. Yes, they ignored him. But their neglection of duty may have a much larger and lasting effect. Here is concrete proof that the corporate media will act to protect Bushco.'s war even if it means censoring a story that WILL get out and thereby demonstrate their utter complicity with the war-mongers' agenda. Don't allow the American monk to get lost in corporate spin.

Schwarzenegger for the Left?

Lately, there has been a lot of talk about the place of "Hollywood liberals" in political ads, doing political speaking engagements and raising money for candidates. It seems the Right just can't get enough of trying to undermine the credibility of well-known people who use their celebrity to promote causes in which they believe. Rush Limbaugh's recent comments about Michael J. Fox "faking" Parkinson's tremors is just one example that epitomizes the Right's fear of the power of stars. But the question remains, "Why don't the Democrats capitalize on stars more?" When the GOP basically owns the mainstream media, including most "liberal" Hollywood film studios, it would seem only a matter of simple strategy for the Left to use one of its great assets.

Bush Latin

One of Resident Bush's dumbest comments, or scariest depending on how you look at it, was when, attempting to sound authoritative, he told us that he was "the decider." It is flagrantly obvious that the Rethuglicans and their Pandercrat allies are either horribly ignorant of the basis of our country's governmental system or just don't give a crap. The latter is the most likely option. However, Bush and his nitwits need to take a lesson in Latin from their constituents. They should know that constituent is from the Latin constituere which means to decide. Hence, constituents are the deciders, Mr. Bush.

It's time we the people sent a clear message to the administration, the Pandercrats and the neo-fascist bastards in the Repug party. (Yes, I said fascist. Anyone who says we are not on the road to fascism is pathetically delusional.) We must stand up and say:

"We are the people. We are the government. We make the choices. You implement them. You work for us. We will not be bullied. We will not have our country destroyed for your wallets. We will not allow you to risk our lives any longer for political expediency and global hegemony. We will not let you steal our votes. We will not allow you to sell our country out to corporations. We will no longer tolerate your treatment of minorities and the poor. We will not allow you to spy on us or create illegal laws to circumvent the Constitution. You are traitors and we are onto you. You are not in charge. We are. We are the deciders."

The Texas Progressives

Most people don't associate progressivism with the so-called uber-red state of Texas, but even the Lone Star state is feeling the urge to get away from the Bush brigade that it spawned. Of course, you might not have heard about the Dem ticket for 2006 in Texas and that's exactly how the mainstream news media wants it....buried and gone. But progressives have ascended to a prominent position in the party and are fighting as hard as they can to wrest power from the Neo-cons, "con"-servatives and Repugs in Dems' clothing that have plagued the state for decades. That being said, there is still a large contingent of "conservative" Democrats standing in their way and it's up to the grass roots to get the job done.

There seems to have been a renewal of both populism and anger that have merged into a grass roots attempt at ousting the Repugs from Austin. One would most likely locate the breaking point sometime during the 2000 presidential election. Dems all over were angry and frustrated having found that the national party, once again, saw Texas as a lost cause and only harassed supporters for money that would not be used in the state. The state convention swelled with new activists looking to change the balance of power. New blood from El Paso to Lubbock to Beaumont came together in Houston. More recently, the Fort Worth convention saw an all-out battle between the traditional and liberal factions for party chair. The libs lost (you know how deal-making turns out), but the message to the establishment was clear. "We're here and you will deal with us."

While there are Dems fighting all over the state in even the most scarlet of counties, here's a taste of some of the most progressive, populist, state-wide barn-burners leading the way.

David van Os is a populist progressive firestorm labor lawyer running for the position of Texas Attorney General against the law-breaking, partisan hackery of Bush-crony Greg Abbott. David has publically challenged the malfeasance of the oil giants shouting his war slogan, "I'm coming for you!" He is publically opposing the Trans-Texas Corridor and abuses of eminent domain. As David says, "There is no legislation that can't be repealed, and no politician that can't be fired at election time..." A staunch supporter of the 14th Amendment and veterans, David has received many awards for his lifetime of work fighting for the Constitution, including Civil Libetarian of the Year from the ACLU and Good Guy recognition from the Texas Womens' Political Caucus. David is also a founding member of the Texas Progressive Populist Caucus. David van Os is a true champion of the people. Those who see him speak live are always impressed and ready to go out and kick elephant behind. Join him at http://www.vanosfortexasag.com/.

Hank Gilbert wants to be Texas's next Ag Commissioner and is supported in that cause by many, including the Texas Fraternal Order of Police. Hank is a former teacher and all around good guy who also opposes the Trans-Texas Corridor. But he grew up a farmer and has farming in his blood. Hank understands the Republican agenda that is hurting so many people across Texas and we're not just talking about farmers. If you want to know how all Texans can benefit from a Democrat as Ag Commissioner, just ask Hank. As he says, "If you eat, you're automatically involved in Agriculture." Help Hank out at www.http://www.hankgilbert.com/

Maria Luisa Alvarado is A San Antonian looking to be the new Texas Lt. Governor. Most people don't realize that the Lt. Governor in the Lone Star state is more powerful than the Governor with lots of pull in the legislative process. Maria seeks to stop the abuses of Austin in matters of equality and, as a veteran herself, wishes to see all Texas vets gets a fair shake. Maria is one of those do-gooders-turned-politician you really have to hear. Maria's campaign can be found at http://www.onetexasforall.com/about.html.

Eliot Shapleigh is a state senator who most people in Texas can't vote for, but unlike higher profile races such as Lampson's bid for DeLay's seat, this race is not getting the attention it needs. El Paso is one of the last bastions of Democrats in Texas, but Eliot is facing a Bush-crony candidate backed by Karl Rove's firm. Shap, like many candidates, is taking a beating in the local media which has conclusively decided to back his challenger, insurance baron Dee Margo. Margo has blasted Shapleigh as being uneffective and a failed leader because El Paso has become the fourth poorest county in the nation while Eliot has been in office. What Margo omits is that it is the leadership in Austin that has failed El Pasoans....the Repug leadership. Tom Craddick has publically stated his opposition to helping El Paso. Margo represents corporate interests and sides with anathemas such as ASARCO, a copper smelter that plans to reopen right smack in the heart of El Paso's Westside, after decades of poisoning people in three states and two countries. Margo is well-funded and backed by developers. Shap could use the help. Go to http://shapleigh.org/ .

There are so many great candidates running for office this time around and they would all appreciate your support. Texas wins when these people win and it is up to the voters to get out there and put them in office where they belong. For too long now, the Repugs have run roughshod over Texas and have engaged in the most despicable acts of partisan politics. It's time to stop allowing them to enrich themselves at our expense and, to paraphrase Sean Penn playing Huey Long in the upcoming movie All the King's Men, "Let them lie in the filth they made."

---

We Don't Need No Stinkin' Rules

The administration has put its law-breaking capacity into overdrive in recent weeks. If it's not one thing with these people its another. I shouldn't rag too much on the administration though. It's apparently the majority of the Repug party that's gone A.W.O.L. from American-style democracy. Check it out:

Contractors: We have all heard about the Bushies' penchant for awarding contracts to their buddies in industry. (We don't have any Eisenhoweresque letters to captains of industry giving them the governnment if he dies yet, but we can be pretty sure they either already exist or are on there way.) We know about Halliburton and KBR fleecings in Iraq. But now comes something we probably, if we asked our past selves, knew was coming. It turns out that a Bushie named O'Beirne is in charge of okaying contracts for the Middle East and he has a unique system. In order to work in Iraq one must swear loyalty to the Bush administration and state opposition to Roe v. Wade. Remember, this is the federal government. Rules schmules.

School Strippers?: Congress recently debated a bill, that was tabled, titled HR 5295 that would, of all things allow schools to spy on their student body (as if they don't already). The bill gives them the ability to engage in 4th Amendment violations up to and including STRIP SEARCHES. Now if we consider how many pedophiles are employed in our schools combined with out-of-control authoritarians, think about how many young men and women will be violated by their trusted authority figures. We might as well pass the same law for the church. So much for the "moral majority."

DLC Wolves: It has been much discussed that a possible presidential contender for the 2008 race is New Mexico governor Bill Richardson. The number one qualification for the Dem elite, however, seems to be that Richardson is Hispanic. What no one seems to be looking at is his record. Richardson is straight-up, NAFTA-wed DLC. In a recent ad, he touts his role in cutting taxes, especially the capital gains tax. Here's a good rule of thumb: If a Dem wants to cut the capital gains tax, he or she is a DLC Repug-lite. In addition, according to Greg Palast's Armed Madhouse, Richardson knew full well that Mexican-American and Native-American votes in NM had been thrown out by GOP operatives in both 2000 and 2004 and he knew his head election official was not correctly investigating the voter purge (She later went on a cruise sponsored by touch-screen voting machine companies). He did nothing. With candidates like Hillary and Bill Richardson, it's amazing the Democratic party still exists.

---

Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com

Geneva for Dummies

The administration is now bent on "defining", or as they like to say, removing the vaguery from Geneva Article III. The only problem is....the article was meant to be vague. The question for those who drafted the Geneva Accords was how to keep future regimes from engaging in activity that, for most reasonable people, is tantamount to government-sponsored torture. The answer was time-tested. Make the language as vague as possible.

Bush keeps asking the question, "How do we know what defines an affront to human diginity? The language is too vague." Or at least he keeps asking a question that somewhat resembles this in English. But how does one go about making sure no one transgresses the idea of human dignity? Think about it. If one is not sure whether one is actually violating an international treaty that prohibits things like...um....torture, then the logical conclusion a reasonable person should come to is that, well.....one is. Or at least one should conclude that it's better not to risk it. But, oh no, not the Bushies.

Here's their logic:

"We know we are in violation of the treaty that, according to the Constitution, is U.S. law, making us technical war criminals. So what should we do? Stop?!! No, that would mean we cannot continue to violate the treaty and U.S. law. But we don't want to get busted. So we should "define" the treaty under our concocted law, using our lackey Congress, in order to make whatever we do legal."

In other words, the Bushies are, for all extensive purposes, attempting to opt out of the Geneva Accords, just as they "opted" out of the Non-proliferation Treaty and the Kyoto Accords. But they can't tell us that. That would be.................fascist. So instead, they claim they want to more clearly define the law. But there's another problem.

Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution prohibits the Congress from passing ex post facto laws. The Latin phrase means that they may not pass laws "after the fact." The administration knows it has transgressed Geneva and their answer is the same as always, i.e. change the law. See, in order to make themselves immune from prosecution for engaging in torture, they want the U.S. Congress to, as they did, break the law. Unfortunately, there are far too many members, Republicans I should say, that are ready and willing to subvert the justice process and let these criminals walk at the expense of our law, our reputation, our tradition and the safety of our troops. Although a few old-school Republicans are blocking the administration's attempts at bullying a co-equal branch of government, we must conclude that our democracy is headed for disaster as long as the Repugs control government.

If an attempt to legalize a globally accepted crime on Nature is not enough to wake the American public out of its stupor, what is?

Greg Gets AmBushed

Greg Palast is a muckraking journalist and an American who had to flee to Britain long ago. He now has his work actually published by The Guardian. In the U.S., he is largely censored. It was Palast that broke the election theft of 2000 by Jeb Bush and ChoicePoint months before anyone over here on the other side of the pond would touch it. He recently uncovered the theft of Mexico's election, again involving ChoicePoint, which the Bush-friendly media have ignored with few exceptions. Greg has been a great source of real news for Americans. But now the administration has caught on.

In an sardonic twist of fate, Palast has been forced to report on his own problems that, not-so-coincidentally, involve the Bush administration, because the corpo-media won't touch it. It seems Palast has been charged with a crime for videotaping actual conditions in the Big Easy for Democracy Now! See, the bushies don't like poor black people, especially when they are in the way of nice, white developments....uh, developers who donate money to campaigns. So they took all the displaced African-Americans and stuck them in trailer parks surrounded by barbed-wire. Yup. Barbed-wire! Greg and his producer, Matt Pascarella, have been charged, not for trespassing, not for protesting, not for spitting on the sidewalk, but for filming a "critical national security structure." Yep, black people who did nothing but escape death by drowning are put in a pseudo-concentration camp and when a reporter, notorious for telling the truth, tries to film it, they charge him with endangering national security.

The Land of the Free?

The Old War

It has not been lost on most people who pay some sort of attention to national politics that the "War on Terror" (aka the War on Terra), is nothing more than a verbal transition from Cold War rhetoric, i.e. it's the new sell. Commies and atheists have been replaced with Arabs and Muslims. The old Soviet bloc is now the Middle East. However, although this may be crystal clear to many Americans, the rhetoric has a purpose and that purpose is, once again, to hide the REAL WAR.

The Real Cold war is the old war of class war. The new vehicle for waging it is the trans/multi-national corporation. In the U.S, our founders attempted to provide us with as much liberty as democracy would allow....while, yes, maintaining as much power for themselves as possible (although they created social mobility). However, those who believe they are smarter than the founders (Yes, believe it or not Neo-cons, such as Cheney, think they know more than people such as Jefferson.), the overly ambitious, see only the overthrow of the American way of life. A little power is not enough for them. They want it all. For what?...Who knows? Working through the corporate sector, they have appropriated your rights effectively for themselves (e.g. Corporate personhood).

Let's take the example of Iraq. The U.S., according to numerous scholars and discussed heavily in Palast's Armed Madhouse, did not go into Iraq to TAKE the oil. They went into Iraq to secure OPEC's oil stranglehold by ensuring that the Iraqis would not "over pump." First rule of economics: Scarcity drives profit. They have also created the first fully "free trade" economy. There are NO tariffs protecting Iraqi businesses. There is NO job security for Iraqis or even jobs . There is only rampant greed. Bush promised them democracy and gave them corporate socialism. Mussolini would be proud.

This could be your future too, America....if the fear is right. How much power are you prepared to give to the Bushistas? When will you see what corp-aberrations are doing to this country and say, once and for all, "I will no longer shop at Wal-mart!" I will boycott Disney for "The Path to 9/11." The New Deal, with the exception of Social Security,for now, is gone. Not enough for you? Look at these quotes:


"We will decide what the news is. The news is what we tell you it is!" -- David Boylan, station manager for Fox Tampa Bay

“We have found we...cannot trust some people who are non-conformists.
We will make conformists out of them in a hurry..." “The organisation cannot trust the individual—the individual must trust the organisation.” - Ray Kroc, McDonald's

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." - G. W. Bush

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator..."- Bush

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it... "- Bush

Still think they're kidding? Still think your job is safe? Still think you have rights?

To the current powers that be, of both parties, you are no different from an Iraqi, Indian or Mexican peasant. They will continue to use corporate power to violate your rights, rip you off and, eventually, make you superfluous. Will you let them? Communism, as employed by Stalin, to these people was not the abomination they claimed it was. It's more the case that they were jealous.

Flat-Earth Education: Part 2

The growing power of Neo-Conservatism on campuses is beginning to have serious effects on the quality of education. For Neo-Cons, the goal is not, as they make out, an equal opportunity to express their views without fearing retaliation. How many Republicans have been failed, removed or censured? We can assume none, because we know they would immediately be in court over it. Their true aim is to dominate classroom discussion to the exclusion of anything even remotely resembling liberalism. This should not sound odd. After all, domination is the basis of Neo-Conservatism. The problem is that they are achieving their goal.

A recent article in The Nation, relates the story of Juan Cole, a prominent Middle East scholar/historian and his inability to claim a professorship at prestigious Yale. Cole is a liberal scholar who holds an objective view of the region and that objectivity has led him to have a critical view of Israeli politics. Unfortunately for Cole and freedom of discourse, his seat was blocked by Neo-Cons who sit on the school board and who saw an opportunity to use the bigotry card to discredit Cole. They actively opposed Cole's liberalism and began a smear campaign against him be calling prominent Jewish donors and spreading the alarm that Cole is an anti-Semite. Many donors, in turn, pressured the school to deny his appointment. Many other professors have faced and do face intimidation from Neo-Cons and other pseudo-patriots who wish to see freedom of discourse meet a cold, calculated end.

David Koepsell, executive director of the Council for Secular Humanism (not a favorite with either the Bible-screwing NASCAR crowd or, for that fact, most mainstream Americans) and professor at the University of Buffalo, makes the case that the explosion of religiosity on campuses has led to professors becoming overly sensitive when dealing with religion-related matters. That being the case, he argues that free academic discourse is suffering.

Academia is being assaulted through religion, business and in its own hallowed halls by the pseudo-intellectual Right. Pepsi and Coke battle to control whole campuses. Religious fanatics demand Creationism, aka Intelligent Design, be taught in science classrooms. Teenagers are subjected to incessant advertising on and in their schools, in their textbooks, and on the mandatory, Bush-connected Channel One. John Yoo teaches at Berkeley. The Right-wing is in full-swing attack mode with organizations seeking to infiltrate and inculcate Right-wing fundamentalism into college life and basic education. Groups such as Accuracy in Academia, Collegiate Network, The Eagle Forum and its Eagle Forum Collegians, Intercollegiate Studies Initiative, Students for Academic Freedom, The Bradley Foundation and The Young America's Foundation are working feverishly to destroy academic freedom.

Flat-Earth Education: Part 1

For decades the radical Right has claimed that universities are havens for liberals who seek to brainwash American youth into hating the United States, but the fact is that there is a growing control of higher education by the Neo-Conservative movement that should trouble most Americans, especially those who value academic freedom, and sadly liberality shares in the blame. Neo-cons now occupy prominent positions on faculties and boards across the nation and they have been exercising their power. In addition, the Right has for some time now been developing a network of institutions designed to increase the visibility and clout of Neo-Cons on campuses. The actions and effects of this movement go largely undiscussed.

Liberality has a peculiar weakness....it is inclusive. At its worst, liberal inclusivity leads to a stringent, unthinking, reactionary political correctness like that which washed across campuses during the 1990s. Unfortunately, the Neo-Cons knew how to take advantage of this weakness and still do. It is not a coincidence that there has been a rise in the activity of what Russell Jacoby writing for The Nation coined "Crybaby Conservatives." Liberals, even those with tenure, now fear for their jobs because of threats of lawsuits by pseudo-conservative students backed by right-wing money who don't "like" what their professor has to say. It has had a chilling effect on academic discourse in many classrooms and has even affected left-wing student movements that fear retaliation from the university administration.

Liberal political correctness has also furthered the Neo-Conservatism that attacks true liberality. One must first ask a basic question. "How do so many Neo-Cons continue to have degrees conferred upon them?" The liberal penchant for tolerating different ideas and approaches combined with apprehension of retaliation from the Right has led to the practice of labeling Right-wing rhetoric antinomically valid. Therefore, Neo-Conservatives continue to win degrees, awards, positions and other honors when their work is based upon patently false premises. The rationale that is utilized by universities says that, even though academia, in general, disagrees with Neo-Conservative arguments and logic, they must confer degrees because Neo-Cons have a right to their opinions and, ludicrously, their arguments are logically valid within the context of the work, false premises or not. In other words, in order to appease the snivelling self-righteousness of Neo-Cons , universities now consider work in a factual vacuum. How else does an Antonin Scalia get a law degree? How does a John Yoo attain a position at Berkeley? How does a Paul Gigot receive a Pulitzer? Why is Republican supply-side economics still taught? In affect, academic institutions are extending honors to people whose dissertation in geology would be on the flatness of the Earth.

Wage Slaves and Feudalism

The purpose of government is to protect and benefit the citizenry. Liberals see this duty as extending to all necessary aspects of life including food, shelter, healthcare, education and the like. Conservatives, especially the "Con"-servatives currently in power, see government protection as concerning only the military and, when linked with our military-commerce-industrial complex, the uber-rich and the corporations they run. Most everyone is aware of this and we see it when the GOP marches out its utterly disproved rhetoric and tells us that tax breaks for the wealthy spur the economy and a minimum wage costs us jobs. They are preaching flat-earth economics, a.k.a.......Hoover-style bunk.

The business of the U.S. government is not corporate monopoly or plutocracy and, contrary to right-wing rhetoristorians, it never has been. (The East India Co. cured the framers of that nonsense.) This can be easily shown. A republic functions by the will of the people in a bottom-up fashion. Corporations are hierarchical systems founded upon an authoritarian model reminiscent of feudal baronies. They are inherently anti-democratic. So why does the Right insist on their American-ness and if someone runs our government on this model, have they not performed a de facto coup? Moreover, big corporations receive so much "welfare" in the form of subsidies and tax breaks that the Right has fostered the very Socialism it vilifies. Think of a big box store. Americans believe they are getting more for less. But in actuality, if we factor in subsidies and tax breaks (not to mention aid for their underpaid employees), Americans are paying exponentially more for such a great "deal." A $1 product could really cost $10.

It is realistic to picture big corporations as gluttonous barons and everyone else as serfs, "freemen", etc.; the Right's idea of America. Sounds a lot like what the Founders wanted to avoid, doesn't it? The corporations will claim that business operates on a Smithian capitalist "free" market system, as they regulary do. Bosh! They know very well that Smithian economics requires both robust competition and a high level of redistribution. They abandoned this anathema long ago in favor of the Robber Baron model, where they take what belongs to us all and sell it back to us, in one way or another, while the government, who they own, looks the other way.

The patriotic economic system of the U.S. is the liberal version and, while the Right decries it as Communist or Socialist, it is truer capitalism. Here's why. If you have a higher income it is because you exploit more resources, either directly or indirectly. This includes labor. Since resources originate in the common pool, one must pay for their use. In the U.S, one pays for resources used by......paying taxes. Corporations and much of the wealthy are using the vast bulk of our resources and, by so doing, are depriving the rest of us of them. Simply put, in good capitalist fashion, the more you take, the more you owe. Hence, the problem with our tax system is that those who take the most are not paying for it in proportion to use.

The corporate socialists will, of course, balk and claim that they create jobs. That would be nice if it were true and the few jobs that are created were worth anything. Maximization of profits demands lousy jobs. But even if it was true, they create jobs in order to exploit labor and, thereby, increase profit. Corporatists will also claim that the poor take advantage and, as the rich do, take without paying. It never occurs to them that to have haves there have to be have nots. They also neglect to consider that, in a post-industrial society, self-made men are a myth as the rich proverbially stand on the shoulders of the poor. But moreover, if our society paid the so-called unproductive to stay out of the workforce, the nation's productivity could only increase as only the ambitious would be involved. Sound crazy? You're brainwashed. The business world knows this is true as it knows that higher wages and more time off increase worker productivity. Unfortunately, the truly "ambitious" or, shall we say, greedy, seem to enjoy inflicting unhappiness.

Now we can hopefully see how ludicrous our economic system has become and how un-American it really is. Unrestricted monopolized-market capitalism has a nasty M.O. and it will eventually eat itself out of existence.

Evidence of Election Tampering to be Destroyed

With all of the questions surrounding the outcome of the 2004 presidential elections, one would think the public would be eager to know what actually happened in Ohio. One might expect elections officials to care enough to see that the outcome of the election was correct. One might even expect to hear something about reams of accusations of alleged tampering and fraud. One might want to find coverage of the hearings held by John Conyers. One might want to see Ken Blackwell investigated for his Harris-style roll. One might even want to know about the impending destruction of the Ohio 2004 election ballots! What???!!!! That's right. Ohio officials, in accordance with Ohio state law, are planning on destroying the tainted 2004 ballots on September 3, 2006....... in less than a month!

According to SavetheBallots.org, Ohio officials have said that they "can't wait" to destroy the ballots and bury the controversy with them. So much for democracy. One would think that, with all of the questions concerning fraud, someone would have the ability to stop the destruction and rescue the ballots, otherwise known as the smoking gun. Those officials, Ohio Repugs, have not only no intention of investigating election fraud themselves, but are bound and determined to see that no one has the ability. Is there a more clear admission of guilt?

Ken Blackwell, the Harris of Ohio and now candidate for Governor, not only has no intention of letting investigations take place, but plans on using the same machines (made by a company he owned stock in) and, one can assume, the same tactics alleged to have been used in 2004 to secure his own election.

Another great miscarriage of justice is about to occur and is being ignored, as usual, by the mainstream media!

To help go to: www.savetheballots.org or write to them at info@savetheballots.org.

Save the Majority!!!

Heard Air America? The Majority Report with Sam Seder is one of the network's top shows, but for some reason AA is considering dropping it. The funny thing is that Sam Seder is one of its most knowledgeable hosts. He is amiable and accommodating to his (non-Rethuglican) callers and guests. The show is entertaining AND informative, which is hard to achieve on radio, and it is odd that the powers that be would consider canceling it. If the problem is low ratings (which is hard to believe) it would seem to be more a peculiar case of an unflattering time slot than a reflection on Seder or the show. Maybe it has something to do with the format change from two hosts to one, with the leaving of Janeane Garofalo, but that doesn't fly since it was originally Seder's show. It sounds like politics and a left-wing network has no business acting like a corporate thug.

Along with Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy, Thom Hartmann, Laura Flanders, State of Belief and Ring of Fire, Sam Seder forms the backbone of AA's truly liberal programming. The station has relied heavily on the star power of the ever-"centrist"-drifting Franken and the Clear Channel connected Springer, but they are the draw, while shows like The Majority Report are the hook.

If you don't listen to the show you should give it a chance. (Check Air America for times and affiliates in your area.) If you do listen, give Sam a hand by calling in during the show at 1-866-303-2270 and firing off an e-mail to supporttheshow@majorityreportradio.com.

The Grass in the Machine

After a great effort in Connecticut, Ned Lamont succeeded in ousting Democrat-turned-Bush sycophant Joe Lieberman. Establishment Democrats must be scratching their heads with fury and confusion and they should be. These Pandercrats still don't get it even if most of them have now superficially endorsed Lamont. They likely believe they just have a mild case of dry scalp which a little rhetorical pine tar shampoo can cure. They don't understand that the body of the Democratic party has sprouted grass.....and it's growing.

Lamont's defeat of Lieberman is part of a continuing change of the political landscape from a desert of disaffected voters to a valley of fertile political activity where the elected will be held accountable to the electorate. Across the nation, grass roots candidates and political outsiders have begun marching towards the fallow ground of the Democratic elite.....and they are taking root. Organizations such as Democracy for America (DFA), a major Lamont backer, and others, have candidates running for and winning seats all over the country at all levels of government. This is a fight the grass roots plan to win even if it is an uphill battle.

The DLC and the mainstream media are obviously unhappy about Connecticut. This morning's airtime was dedicated almost solely to Lieberman's whining about Lamont's supposed distortion of his record. (Hey Joe, how stupid do you think we are?!!!) When they should have been covering Lamont and focusing on a Democratic win in November, they were, instead, licking their wounds, admitting the co-opted nature of the Democratic elite and buffering Joe "Bush-Loves-Me" Lieberman for a run as an independent that jeopardizes the Democratic ticket. But, for some reason, we are still supposed to believe that Joe is a REAL Democrat and Lamont is an "insurgent" lunatic. Well, Lamont is an insurgent, as Newt (a former insurgent himself) so tersely put it, but the good kind. Read more about Lamont's background in The Nation. (Didn't it strike the 48-odd% of Democrats in Connecticut strange that Newt was weighing in for Lieberman?)

In coming years, we will see more grass roots challenges from the left fighting for the soul of the Democratic party. Hopefully, as liberal ideas creep back into the mainstream, more liberal candidates will take the place of "centrist" Pandercrats. It is time that the left again had a chance to implement the policies that have worked so well in the past. The Right has repeatedly proved that its ideas are bunk, but the Pandercrats still won't act. The result has never been worse. Joe Lieberman is not a victim of anti-Iraq war sentiment. He is a victim of arrogance and complicity. The grass is in the machine and it is up to the people to keep watering it.

PNAC ATTACK ON AMERICA

Many, or should I say most, people in the American mainstream are still unaware of the existence of PNAC, otherwise known as the the Project for the New American Century. PNAC is a right-wing think tank that is.... and no I'm not kidding.... bent on global domination through U.S. military might. It was begun by Bill Kristol, a regular pundit on many "news" shows, and Robert Kagan. Kristol is completely looney toons. PNAC, among others, has been a key player in shaping the agenda of the Bush cabal. In fact, a quick view of its website should be enough to give the averge person a good idea of what it's all about.

PNAC is the group responsible for lobbying Clinton to attack Iraq, yes Iraq, in the 1990s and on the site you will find a document entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses. This document lays out PNAC's military/economic agenda for the United States. It also contains a startling idea. On page 51, you will discover one of PNAC's statements that says that a "new Pearl Harbor" would go a long way in facilitating the public's acceptence of PNAC's plans. This document came out in September of 2000. That should be enough information to get people interested in investigating, or at least it might perk up their ears. But the document and the think tank's agenda have been widely ignored by the mainstream media even though they continue to interview Kristol. For that reason, it is necessary to demonstrate how PNAC is corrupting government. We can do this by examining its most incriminating document.


Rebuilding America's Defenses

The author's of this authoritarian/imperialist manifesto have done us a great service. At the beginning of the document we find they have left us an outline of the paper's main points. It is layed out eerily like a checklist. So let's do some checking.

Some of the proposals listed are somewhat ambiguous as to their real meaning, so we will examine a few that are not.

"...fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars...": Gee. Does this one really need explaining? We are already in Afghanistan and Iraq and it looks daily as if we are going into Iran and Syria. Remember, however, that the Middle East is only the beginning of their plan. There is still the Balkans (unless that was Clinton's job), East Asia and, for some, reason, Europe and the UN. Apparently PNAC sees our longtime allies as threats to our security. This is, of course, (excluding the idea that PNAC and the WTO/IMF/World Bank/etc. club is tied in with PNAC) unless we have already economically conquered these areas.

"...perform 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions...": It has always been seen as a violation of American law for the U.S. to engage in police actions. However, that is exactly what we are doing in Iraq and that is exactly what PNAC wants. We are supposed to be turning over Iraq to the Iraqis, but be assured that is not the plan. This is also where the competing interests of the oil men come in. If we were actually leaving Iraq would we be building permanent bases?

"Maintain Nuclear Strategic Superiority": And you thought the Cold War was over! Bush has already opted out of the ABM Treaty and it looks like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty is a goner. But Americans really need those Indian mangoes. This is how they plan to reignite the Cold War (and people thought Condi Rice had no real place in the administration).

"Control the New 'International Commons' of Space and Cyberspace": This is one of those you don't too often hear about in the corporate press. There has been some talk about deep-sixing Internet neutrality and the Congress has moved on it. Of course, they seem to be on the side of big-business as opposed to the people. This is step one in the privatization of the Internet. It is most likely also part of the plan to scare the public into tighter restrictions on the web by pushing the ideas of Internet predation and Identity Theft. There are very likely lots of predators and thieves out there, but, if it's such a big deal, why does the government continue to put our inforamtion on the web and why do parents continue to allow their children unsupervised access to the net? Besides the last high profile predator convicted was one of the same group of people in the DHS telling us to be afraid and charged with our protection.

"...the creation of a new military service - U.S. Space Forces- with the mission of space control." : This has to be a joke right?!! Nope. The little Neo-Cons think the aliens are coming for them. More to the point, they want to have complete military control over space, probably because they think the evil Pan-Franco and Russo-fascists will out-fascista them first. There have already been reports of space war simulations. Then there was the little reported move by Tom DeLay in Texas. After the Repugs Perry-mandered the districts (Perry is the governor) Texans found that NASA's Houston, was suddenly in DeLay's district. Then there are the GOP-led NASA budget cuts. It's just like with schools and the U.S. Post Office. The Bushies are strangling them in the hopes of garnering support for privatization.

"Develop and Deploy Global Missile Defense Systems": Can anyone say Star Wars? Although this ridiculous idea of trying to, essentially, hit a pencil launched from a slingshot out of the air with a smaller pencil (try it!) was aborted years ago because it DOESN"T WORK, the boys, mostly, at PNAC still think it's a grand idea. They have lots going on this front like the MDA and NMD. They keep claiming success also. Too bad they have to put radio transmitters on the "enemy" missiles in order to hit them.

These are just a few of the overwhelming amount of suggested actions, developed by PNAC, that the administration has seen fit to undertake. Go to PNAC's website, or the website of the PNAC watchdog, to see just how imporatnt these lunatics are to this administration.

More later.

Yo Joe! Time To Go!

So.... who do you want to win the Connecticut primary between incumbent Joe "Bush-Loves-Me" Lieberman and Ned "New-Kid-On-The-Block" Lamont? The U.S is watching this race with great anticipation. (As of yesterday, many polls had Lamont ahead by about 10 points). The central issue seems to be the right-leaning Democratic Leadership Council versus the grass roots supported Lamont, but the party establishment wants Americans to believe it's about nothing more than punishing the incumbent for a few missteps. However, the choice should be absolutely clear to anyone who believes in the democratic process and the choice is....Ned Lamont.

Being that Lamont is an unproven politician who believes it is time for a change and who has neither serious skeletons in his closet nor other serious strikes against him, we must look at Lieberman's actions. The fact is that Joe has messed up royally of late and it is ALWAYS better to try the new than stay with the old when the old is a politician who is now totally unpredictable. In fact, he is a complete wild card whose future actions can no longer be safely anticipated, contrary to his claims about being a good Democrat in the past. But let's take a look.

The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC): The Clinton-founded DLC functions as a rival institution to the DNC (now more than ever with the election of Howard Dean) with the goal of moving the party to the "center," i.e. center right. The DLC is far too intertwined with corporations and laissez faire style government to effectively represent
the interests of the average American Democrat and, economically speaking, there is little difference between DLC Democrats and Repuglicans. Joe is a DLC Democrat which is why President Clinton is out stumping for him. He actually served as the DLC chair. Establishment Dems are backing him through orgs such as the DSCC and DCCC (which has been recruiting candidates that are pro-war and "centrist"). Remember NAFTA? Joe supported that.

The War(s): Joe has consistently sided with the cabal on issues concerning military action in the Middle East, going so far as to question the loyalty of Democrats who oppose it, against the will of his constituents. In addition, Joe's sentiments concerning Israel are well-known and it seems that he has jumped on board with the Neo-Cons PNAC agenda. Americans should question the loyalty of any politician who would put American lives in danger for their own ideological beliefs. The fact that one of his staffers apparently saw fit to chide Jewish-Americans for supporting Lamont speaks volumes.

Independent Joe?: One reason is enough to send Joe home; his declaration that if he loses the democratic primary he will run as an Independent. What is he thinking? The problem is that Joe is so cozy with Bushco. that he believes he will get a sizable portion of the Republican vote. In addition, Joe is so "centrist" that he will pick up some Independents and conservative Dems. But does he think he can win this way? We should seriously doubt this strategy's effectiveness or his belief that it will work. The most likely outcome is that Joe will split the Democratic vote enough for a Republican to win it. Is this Joe's real plan? Is he so convinced of his God-given right to pretend to represent the interests of voters in Connecticut that he would sabotage the election? Or is this a ploy to blackmail pragmatic Dems into giving him another term?

Attitude: Joe has shown nothing but contempt for his challenger. He apparently thinks it is his seat and no one else has a right to vie for it. This can be demonstrated by his campaign strategy as of late that seems to be orchestrated more by Karl Rove then any Democrat. Lieberman's attacks on Lamont have no substance. They have been characterized by personal attacks on both Ned and his supporters. He attacked Lamont for being a millionaire and accused him of trying to by the election, although Ned asked him to agree to cap donations and expenditures. Besides the DLC, DSCC and DCCC could easily outspend Lamont if necessary. But, says Joe, Lamont has no political experience. The point? Lots of candidates have little or no experience and lots of experience is not necessarily always a plus. He has refused to answer campaign questions and, initially, refused to debate. No politician should ever believe he or she has the right to hold office in a democracy.

There are many other problems with Joe's performance, but the point should be clear: Joe's actions, whether taken individually or together, are more than enough for the voters of Connecticut to desire new leadership. Moreover, all voters should take into account the DLC v. DNC element. The DLC is a blight on the party and we need to start removing its memebrs from office everywhere.

---

Why Isn't Howard Acting Like a Democrat

Many people today are asking why Howard Dean, current DNC chair, is not doing anything to win in November. They want to know where the plan is and what it is? These critics even include many former Deaniacs (from his 2004 bid for the presidency and subsequent Democracy for America members). The mood seems to have changed from, "Give 'em hell Harry!" to, "What the hell are you doing Harry?" The problem with the current negativity is threefold. One, Dean is being criticized for not doing things that are beyond his control. Two, the efforts that are underway are obvious for those who wan t to see them. Three, there seems to still be some kind of irrational backlash against Dean from those who supported other candidates during the 2004 campaign.

First, some things that people seem to expect Howard to be involved in he just plain can't do. For instance, the DNC has been taking flack from the grass roots progressive movement for not backing Ned Lamont in his bid against Joe Lieberman in Connecticut. Problem is, the DNC doesn't take sides in primary fights. How can anyone ask Dean to choose one Democrat over another without alienating Democratic voters somewhere, even if it's ole' "Bush-Likes-To-Kiss-Me-Joe?" Dean himself has said this is so. Others want him to single out and support specific candidates who need help with their bids against Republicans. I'm sure he is trying, however, this year is experiencing a huge progressive uprising and there are new progressive candidates all over the board. Can anyone blame him for not being able to reach them all?

Secondly, people are claiming that he isn't doing anything because they've seen no new strategy from the DNC for 2006. Are they blind? What do they think the 50 state stratgey is? Of course, many are naysaying the 50 state strategy saying it won't be effective and will take away from other more important races. If this is so there is no evidence of it. I believe this is just the establishment, angry over Dean's more grass roots oriented approach and shunning of corporate donations. It is rumored that many establishment Dems have been operating behind the seens trying to create a new party apparatus. Considering the way the DLC, DSCC and DCCC have been acting lately, I believe this to be true. But for those who just won't stop crying for something on which to teethe, check out Tom McMahon's challenge to Ari Berman's bashing from The Nation.

Lastly, when people attempt to counter the negativity concerning Dean, they are often met with accusations of being cultists and other nonsensical responses. These people seem to have some lingering resentment from the 2004 election and all that can be said to them is, "Get over it."

Welcome to Blue Egg Commentaries

Hello,

I know, I know, what you're thinking! Another blog?!! Yes, another blog!

Here's why.The Democratic/Progressive/Liberal movement in America is not splintered in the way the media and the GOP want us to belive. We do have a plethora of causes and beliefs and don't see eye to eye on every issue. Therefore, we need as many voices to be heard as possible to fill in the gaps. Hence, the Blue Egg Commentaries.

The Left-wing in our country is composed of those members of our society who can, for the most part, think for themselves. The Right-wing does not think. It follows. Many people have begun to explore the potential of this dichotomy. Recently, John Dean's new book Conservatives without Conscience and George Lakoff's Moral Politics have done so from differing vantage points. But whether we call it a need for authoritarianism or strict daddy syndrome, the Right cannot function without being told what to do and how to do it. It can only froth and bark like a dog on a chain. This works to our advantge, but we must network and share ideas in order for it to do so. It is our disagreements, as much as our agreements, that should shape our action.

We are the majority. This is why Blue Egg Commentaries is named as it is. We have always been led to believe that our political spectrum is a linear model with a precise center. This is not so. The reasoning for this model occurs when politics is abstracted beyond people and the dialectic between conservatism and liberalism is divided equally along the line. The press uses this pseudo-logic when it asserts that airing dirt on a Republican candidate must somehow be balanced with dirt on the Democratic opponent (of course, not vice versa), even if it must be spun from wholecloth. We also see this fallacy at work on our campuses where Left-wing political correctness has led to the awarding of degrees to flat-earthers who are said to have generated legitimate antimonies when they have really just professed unsupported personal beliefs (more on this at a later date).

In actuality, our political model should be seen as an egg. If we divide an egg in half, one side will be smaller and taper much more than the other side with a wider circumference and more well-rounded end. The former represents the Right-wing. As we near the end the views become more extreme. The latter is the Left where we, literally, have a bigger tent...uh, shell and can hold a broader range of ideas.

In fact, the whole notion of right-wing ideology versus left-wing ideology is incorrect. Ideology, as used commonly and as used by the media, connotes a rigid belief system where ideas must conform. According to this idea, I assert that true liberals/progressives cannot be labeled ideologues. (This is represented by the flatter end of the egg.) I am not saying, nor could I legitimately hold, that there is no such thing as a Left-wing ideologue. I am, however, saying that ideology and liberalism clash and generate oxymorons. And the Right-wing agrees with me! Why else do they claim we have no message because we don't believe in anything. This is why the Left does not, nor can it, lock step as the Right does. But the Right also cannot change its position or admit that it is wrong.

As for why the egg is blue, I think that should be obvious. I, however, do not subscribe to Yellow Dog Democratism and have many problems with the Democrats, but, as of today, see no alternative (more on that later, too). I would rather have had a blue-green egg, but the Blue-green Egg Commentaries sounds off to me, as does the Purple Egg Commentaries. We must simply remember that, as the political spectrum is not strictly linear, neither is political hue.

Enjoy!