Horse-Race Mongering

So John Edwards has bowed out of the race for President. We are now left with two so-called Democrats, appeaser Obama and corporate Clinton, and the anachronism that calls itself the Republican race. We are told that this is the will of the voters in action. We are told that these are the front-runners. We are told that these are the viable candidates. We are not told, however, that corporate-friendly, unthreatening establishment candidates get all of the news coverage and, thereby, have all of the advantage in the race.

The so-called press led the American public to believe that overweighting race and gender would lead to a substantial change in government. It is right to a degree. The election of Clinton would be the first woman president in U.S. history. The election of Obama would be the first African-American president. What the press neglected to inform the voters about is that neither candidate will substantially alter the course of the nation. In purely economic terms, Clinton and Obama are the equilvalent of wealthy white men and will govern accordingly.

In contrast, John Edwards, the actual wealthy white man, stood for populism and an end to what really ails this state, i.e. the expansion of unbridled corporate power and influence over the globe and the government. While Obama was claiming that he was funded entirely by small individual donations (which is false www.opensecrets.org), Edwards was backed by progressive individuals through places such as Act Blue and heavily limited industry donations. Of course, the powers that be wanted to block campaign matching funds for Edwards.

The coverage of the candidates belied the media's interest in giving an unbiased report. After Iowa, where Edwards placed second, the coverage of the Clinton v. Obama race continued on full pace. It was never about how Edwards defeated Clinton, but only about how stunning it was that Clinton came in third and how she was expected to rebound in NH. After the New Hampshire primary, Edwards became largely a nonentity. It is not rocket science to suggest that the candidates who receive the most coverage, positive or negative, will be foremost in the minds of the voters. Madison Avenue has known this for years. Hence, it is not unplausible to suggest that the media knowingly and purposefully chose to cover Obama and Clinton at the expense of the anti-corporate Edwards. After all, the media is ostensibly a singular corporate entity unto itself. Of course, it attempted to make it seem as if it had to cover Obama and Clinton being that they are, in a way, the political aberrations of this election season. It seemed to matter little to Democrats that the total coverage of race and gender made Democrats seem as reactionary as Republicans.

We now have one candidate who is a shill for the pharmaceutical companies and one who praises Reagan and vows to put the same kind of people we have now back in control in the name of bipartisanism claiming to be the candidates of change. Socrates said that it was necessary to control the stories in order to keep control over the populace. The media now controls our stories in quite the literal sense. However, the media does not act in the interests of the people and it is now time to remove the mainstream, corporate interests of this behemoth from our election system.

Digital TV or FCC Sneak Attack

Maybe you've heard that the federal government is requiring all television transmissions to be carried on a digital signal by 2009. Of course this requires anyone who wants to continue to receive television signals to mess with upgrade equipment (if it works at all) or buy a new TV(what a boon to TV manufacturers). However, it doesn't seem that the public is overly upset about it. Maybe that's because we the people have not really considered the implication of this technological shift.

Granted, I have not studied up on the actual cold facts concerning the conversion, but I have learned not to trust those in charge of commissions such as the FCC which has been trying whole-heartedly to deprive us of any semblence of media diversity by changing the rules to allow megaconglomerates to buy up whatever they want. It's bad enough that the overwhelming majority of media worldwide is now controlled by five huge transnationals, but it now seems they are going to deprive us of recourse to arguments about the public airwaves.

Most Americans are unaware that, as it currently stands, television is broadcast over public airwaves and that means it belongs to us. Networks are responsible under the law to provide programming in the public interest. So what happens when it goes digital? One must assume that digital signals require transmission through satellites. Who owns those satellites? Care to guess?

A cynical person might conclude that the digitizing of television is a subtle (or not-so-subtle) coup over public control of network programming.

Warm enough for you?

First, let's be clear; the problem is methane as well as CO2. However, CO2 is the most talked about greenhouse gas, so let's take a look at the history here. It's a long, detailed article with links, so it's really only for those who want an understanding of how our understanding of the growth, in ppm, of CO2 in our atmosphere has progress over the centuries. The article, though, is not up-to-date, and I'll cover that here. Perhaps I'll do an article on methane in the future, since it's showing a similar rise.

Basically, the CO2 concentration has grown from a low of 180 ppm to today's concentration of 380ppm. The chart covers from 1958 to today. In the past 400,000 years, the concentration in the atmosphere has never exceeded 280 ppm - until 1950, when it surpassed the 280 ppm mark. The chart goes to 2004; the ppm today is > 385 ppm.


What does this mean for global temperature? How about this (thru 2006); the source, very long, article is here.



The picture below should tell you something. The summer melt in Greenland has grown by the shaded amount in just 10 years. 10 freakin' years.



How about other ice indicators around the world? Back in 2002, the alarm about glacier melting was already being sounded, as in this article from The National Geographic. Here's just one quote from the article:

Most of Earth's 160,000 glaciers have been slowly shrinking and thinning for more than a century as the climate warms up from both natural causes and human activity.

But scientists say the melt rate has accelerated dramatically since the mid-1990s, which was the hottest decade in a thousand years, according to data from ancient ice cores and tree rings.

A glacier in the Peruvian Andes, Qori Kalis, is losing as much ice in one week as it used to surrender in a year, according to Lonnie Thompson, a geologist at the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University in Columbus.

Here's a before and after picture of a glacier in Montana (sourced here)


We know that the melting rate today is much larger than it was in 2002. Back in 2002, scientists thought that the Arctic might be free of ice during the summer by 2100; now, they think it will happen by 2030. Even just 9 months ago, the date was put at 2040 or later; in just 9 months, they've moved the date up by 10 years.

Something that's not talked about, outside of scientific communities, is that the RATE of CO2/methane increase in the atmosphere is increasing at about .3 ppm per year. So, in 3 years, the RATE of Co2 increase goes up about 1 percent; right now, the rate of increase is about 2.6 ppm/year.

Take a look at the amount of CO2 projected to be released in the future - and this graph is now out of date, since it didn't properly take into account the growth that would hit China and India.



The point is: we're screwed. 30 years ago, it was already too late not to get where we are - and we're still not doing anything, meaningful, about it. We're also not preparing people to move away from the coasts, and we face a 16 foot rise by 2030-2040. That doesn't mean that, in the last 10 minutes of 2030, the sea-level will come up 16 feet. In my lifetime, the world is going to change dramatically; warming, sea level rise, increased strength of storms, energy shortages, food riots, drought, floods, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Obviously, some Chinese guy has cursed the world with the old curse of:
May you live in interesting times.

Our times are WAY too interesting for my taste.

Have a nice day!

Larry Wilson

The Destruction of Public Television

Maybe you've noticed the changes that have occurred on PBS under the guidance of the current administration and the last congress. These changes are said to have no effect on the programming. However, it seems this is yet another Orwellian attempt at double speak, i.e. no change means major change.

The inclusion of sponsors such as Boeing and ADM are having serious ramifications on the quality of news programming. Case in point: While the diversity of viewpoints was always sorely lacking on programs such as The Newshour, the recent transition from established, although by no means objective, sources to what can only be described as front organizations is destructive to say the least. To allow organizations such as Freedom's Watch (a poorly disguised front for the pro-war position of the Bush administration) airtime to smear a prominent senator for disagreeing with the president and to make seriously specious claims about him (although one can have little sympathy for Mr. Warner)is an abuse of the public airwaves.

But even beyond allowing egregious agenda promotion, a.k.a. commercial propaganda, to parade as news, one must wonder how it seems to go unnoticed that groups such as Freedom's Watch are actually proselytizing for the position of the so-called sponsors. Not only does Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc. get to plaster their logo all over a formerly citizen-supported media, but they apparently get to inject what is to their economic benefit into the discourse. One must wonder if at every news program on PBS there is a corporate rep now standing over the editing process or if their is a corporate goon under the ombudsman's desk.

So once again it seems the Bushie's are getting their way with little or no opposition - replace funding with mandatory scripting.

The Promotion of Media Mythology

Friday night is politics night on PBS with the Newshour, followed by Washington Week, NOW, the McLaughlin Group and Bill Moyers. These shows are billed as being politically savvy and in the know. We are also reassured that they represent a balanced exchange of views. Nonsense! PBS, with the exception of the investigative reporting by NOW and Moyers commentary has been thoroughly coopted by the right. Does that sound like a conspiracy theory? Too bad. The truth hurts. Besides, all one has to do is look at the current corporate sponsorship to see a startling pattern of corporate, right-wing manipulation of these broadcasts. Boeing is not interested in the truth. Not enough to convince you? Okay consider this.

This past Friday, 8/16/07, The topic of media interest was Karl Rove. Rove has decided to step down, or as we on the left believe, run. Yet there was no real discussion of the possible crimes Rove has committed. The "debate" focused on how much of a "genius" Rove is concerning political maneuvering. But even worse than that, the talking point of the night, most likely drawn up by some right-wing fascist, was how Rove managed to win the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections for Bush by utilizing his special brand of voter targetting. Whoa! Let's look at that for a minute.

No matter how much the right wing base wants to live in La La Land, it is now an uncontestable fact that George Bush did NOT win the election of 2000. Independent studies have shown repeatedly that, even with large stretches of the imagination, that Al Gore won Florida. Even if they hadn't, the fact remains that the Supreme Court overstepped its jurisdiction to hand Bush the election. Then there was the clear use of illegal voter caging. Are we to applaud Karl Rove for cheating? Apparently so. Ohio in 2004 suffered the same types of Rovian shenanigans and we can logically and credibly assume that Bush did not win the 2004 election either. (Of course we'll never know now that Republican rats in the state have destroyed the election ballots. (Can you say cover up?) So why did the guy from the American Prospect and Lehrer just sit there and nod when Brooks repeated the lie?

Then we go to Washington Week where, lo and behold, the exact same talking point was reiterated ad nauseum by some partisan from the Wall Street Journal (a true bastion of balanced editorializing) named Jackie Calmes. Again, no one refuted her assertions. The same story happened on the McLaughlin Group where the supposed liberal, Eleanor Clift, allowed Tony "Canned Spam" Blankley to continue to mislead the public without batting an eyelid.

The fact is that the "news" is packed with liars and those who are complicit for the sake of their jobs. There is no liberal media. In fact, there is no real news. Bush is the first two-term, unelected President in history and Rove is a criminal. Yet the media persists with its version of the "Truth" which is nothing more than fantasy.

Ron Paul and the Independent Aura

What is it with the word Independent? According to the mainstream "press"tidigitators for the last few decades, politicians have had to court the independent voter. But why? In the past, self-identified independents made up a very small portion of the overall electorate. However, the news today trumpets the growing independent minority as if it represents the apex of political intellectual acuity; nevermind that most who identify as independent are sorely lacking understanding of the political system. It is the contention of the mass media that the growth in the number of self-identifying independents is a result of discontent with the Democratic party as Republicans are depicted as solidly loyal to their party of preference. But is this true?

Firstly, any pollster can tell you that when a third, seemingly innocuous, choice is added to a poll question, a large number of people will pick it. For instance, if presented with a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 and 10 represent extremes, the average American will usually opt for somewhere in the middle if not 5 outright. This in no way means that they have a better understanding of the topic and it continues to propogate the myth that Americans are "centrists." If most polls used to offer a choice between Republican and Democrat or a choice between the two major parties and a number of other affililiations, but now trend towards Republican, Democrat, and Independent, it is not unlikely that those with no opinion or an ill-informed opinion will gravitate to Independent. That is, independent has become the chic choice for those who don't know.

Secondly, the media continues to deny that most polls have shown repeatedly, and for quite some time, that the majority of the American electorate is left of center on most issues, even the contentious issues like abortion. Self-identifying independents are no exception. Most would choose a perceived liberal over a perceived conservative most of the time. So while it may be true that some people have begun identifying themselves as independents because they have become disillusioned with the Democrats, it is by no means a sign that the principles of the Democratic base have become out-of-touch with the American voter. The press only wants it to seem that way. That is why it persists in pushing the idea that anti-Iraq war voters are on the fringe when approximately 70% of the elctorate is against the Iraq occupation.

The current fascination with Ron Paul fits well into what the media is selling. Ron Paul is popular with independents because, simply put, he sounds like a Democrat, at least on issues like Iraq. A deeper look at the man will reveal his right-wing tendencies. Paul is simply functioning as the new maverick McCain since McCain has gone off the deep end. If the media actually covered his record in lieu of selling him as a Republican insurgent, the American public would not take a media-encouraged shine to him. However, the media has managed to effectivley give the words conservative and Republican a connotation of respectablility even in the face of continued Republican scandals and, arguably, the worst GOP administration in history.

Independents must understand that until there is a major overhaul of the electoral system, we have, for better or for worse, a two-party system. The only real change must be affected by altering a major party. That requires participation. Independents have effectively opted out of the process and expect to be wooed anyway.

Restating the Names

It's time for an Aristotelean attempt at reordering the labels that the media has now used for years to distort the positions of the politicians they are supposed to be covering. Specifically, it's time to take a good look at the terms Conservative and Liberal.

Conservatism, loosley being the belief in smaller government, is a dead propostion. Both sides of the political spectrum seek to enlarge government. The Left still pursues those nasty social spending programs. You know, the ones that, like the New Deal, tend to work. The other side, while decrying government spending, seeks enlargement of government through the creation of federal bureaucracies charged with things like spying on the public, facilitating corporate intrusion into government, and the military (but only so corporate war-profiteers can make some more cash of the public cow. To hell with the vets).

However, the "press" consistently labels anyone with a "D' behind their name as liberal and anyone who supports government-run religious oppression as conservative.
So let's do some redefining.

The first term, that is gaining more usage, but is already being misapplied, is progressive. Progressively can be loosley defined as working for the benefit of the majority. Do not be misled. Progressives do represent the interest of disenfranchised minorities, etc. in the hopes that equality will benefit all.

The second term is Regressivism. Regressives represent the elite. Regressives seek to insulate extreme special interest groups through legislation.

So now, if we utilize the four terms we have, we can create four categories of political characterization. First, Progressivism can be combined with Liberalism. or the desire for quick systemic change, to create Liberal Progressives, or those who desire quick systemic change for the benefit of all. Secondly, we can combine Conservatism with Progressivism yielding Conservative Progressives, or those who want slow, managed change for the benefit of all. Thirdly, we have the Liberal Regressives. Sounds like a contradiction of terms, but this is what then "Neocons" actually consider themselves to be. Liberal Regressives, such as Dick Cheney, want quick, systemic change benefitting the few. Lastly, we have the Conservative Regressives, or John McCains, who want slow, managed change to benefit the few.

The problem that we are still left with is the divide between social agendas and economic agendas. A Rudolph Guliani poses a problem. Considered by the mainstream media to be a social "liberal" Guliani would seem to fall into the ranks of Conservative Progressives on social issues. However, as is often the case, Guliani's economic proposals would have the effect of creating an atmosphere where Regressives would dominate the social arena through economic policy. So what is he? Who knows?

What is certain is that Clinton is no Progressive and McCain is no Conservative.

Flashback: Snow Job Says Oversight......Overshite

So Tony Snow , ex-Faux "news"-caster, told the "press"tidigitators that Congress has no oversight authority over the executive branch!? Once upon a time, before a creature called Reagan began dismantling public education, it was common for kids to learn about things called checks and balances. I suppose Snowjob was edumacated either at home, by a Neil-Bush style private school or by the Ivy League. In any case, he's as wrong as can be and the mythical basis for a Unitary Executive is not only a product for a flat-earth bake sale, but should be seen as so Right-leaning as to be perpendicular to democracy, ready to ram it to death. Welcome to Bizarro world. Repugs call it a different interpretation. What it is is a serious danger and a high crime.

Let's rewind a little more. In a sweltering building in 1787, a bunch of guys in tights got together to hash out the basis for our government. Unlike today's leaders, they all spoke intelligible English. There they argued over the Executive branch. They argued over how many executives there should be. They argued over whether the exec should be removable or not and who should do it. In the end, they decided that there should be one executive who could be impeached by Congress and who would be required to tell Congress what the Executive was up to occasionally. They even decided the president would have to get confirmations for all his appointments from Congress. In essence, they figured they might one day get a real git and would need an out. Boy, if they only knew.

Here's the problem. These self-styled wunderkinds either can't read or are so bloody damaged that they are wholly incapable of hearing, seeing, speaking.......thinking the truth (capital or lowercase t). Their comprehension skills are similar to a goldfish's memory - 3 seconds to make the connection.....1......2......oh no, it's gone! If you think they don't eat their own baloney just listen to their "experts," like John Yoo at Berkely law (my favorite punching bag). His writing has been described as "tortured logic." Hmmmm. They torture the abstract too but claim they don't? I wonder if they perform extraordinary renditions on it?

Now these eegits (Oh I know. Calling names is bad. We don't want to impede a dialogue.......), anyway, these eegits will argue that the debate hedged between a weak and powerful executive and, since the presidential powers are mostly undefined in Article II, whereas Congress's powers are strictly defined by Article I (not really), it follows that the president has broad authority. Sounds like a pretty persuasive position, huh? Goldfish turds! Article II has to be taken in the same context as Article I, not separately. Article II follows Article I for a reason. Congress is the most powerful branch of government being the branch with the House which represents the direct will of the people and has the power to initiate impeachment proceedings. With few exceptions, the president has no power to act except upon Congressional legislation that may be "executed" or vetoed. (Today Repugs claim Congress has no authority, other than funding authority over Iraq. Besides the fact that Bush violated both the Constitution and the War Powers Act by invading Iraq without notifying Congress, Congress may both declare and undeclare war).

But yeah, some of the tight-wearing, wigged guys wanted a king; specifically Hamilton. He thought that the public was too stupid to rule itself. (We may have finally come to the crossroads where we find out once and for all. But, at least, we'd want a semi-reasonable king, right?) Thing is it doesn't matter because Hamilton lost the argument then. So where do these blatantly anti-American nutsos get the idea that it's still an open debate? Really want the answer? Okay......you and me! The public is responsible for every crime this egregious excuse for an administration has and will commit. They can't change the rules unless we let them. We made an effort by changing Congress last round, but it appears we went back to sleep.

Hey! THERE'S NO BASIS FOR A UNITARY EXECUTIVE! In fact, in light of Bush/Cheney's motives for declaring it, being to suck up to fat cat, robber baron heads of trans-nationals, it's probably definitional treason. So why hasn't the House done its Constitutional duty and impeached these S.O.B.s? We haven't demanded it.

Repug History

Last night (3/9/07) on The Newshour, while discussing possible (we should say given) abuses by the FBI, Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) gave the public yet another insight into the delusional world of Repuglican thought processes with the following observation:

"REP. JAMES SENSENBRENNER: Well, you know, first of all, we do give law enforcement in
this country a lot of discretion. And that's been the way since the beginning of the republic. The
FBI has very clearly abused its discretion, and in its abuse of the discretion, is going to end up
bringing about a reaction by the Congress."

Apparently, to Sensenbrenner's "sensen" of history, the American colonists were never suspicious of law enforcement encroaching on their rights. They never ousted governors nor railed against military presences. They never passed a Bill of Rights that forbade law enforcement (you know, the occasional sheriff or reeve or magistrate) from illegal searches and seizures, etc. In fact, according to Sensenbrenner's comment, he must believe the Founders would have applauded the creation of the FBI, CIA, NSA etal. since they are so like the large paramilitary organizations the Founders themselves organized. Right? It's a little like talking about how the original colonists loved their AK-47s, telephones and Model-Ts.

Moreover, how does a man convince himself that the Founders would have applauded the PATRIOT Act which in essence undoes most of the protections the Bill of Rights solidified? Beyond that, how does he believe that the FBI can overstep its legal obligations when its very existence is counter to Constitution?

Unfortunately, Repugs have difficulty comprehending history as is epitomized, not only by Sensenbrenner's statement, but by idiotic ramblings by people such as John Yoo and all the Right-wingers who miscontextualize history for ideological expediency. Take, for instance, the debate over the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment cannot be taken apart from the whole Constitution, since it was meant to redress deficiencies in the Constitution proper, specifically those in Article I. However, Repugs (most recently the Repug court that has gone after gun laws) insist on taking it out of context and then ignoring those pesky little references to militias and regulation. The 2nd Amendment is not a guaranteed right to own a gun or to shoot at other Americans and was never meant to be. It simply says you have the right to defend your country and that the government has to let you do so by providing you with an "arm" and training. So what's this business about turning people away from the armed services? Oh yeah, they aren't allowed to exist either.

In short, Sensenbrenner's statement, while seemingly benign, is indicative of Republican penchants for chronically and intentionally attempting to undermine Constitutional protections. Whether its the creation of clandestine paramilitary organizations, unitary executives, perpetual, illegally engaged in wars, denying checks and balances, stealing elections, spying on the public, privatizing the military or purposefully misinterpreting history, the Right-wing in this country is out to recreate Stalinism in red, white and blue paint.

Who's Your Daddy

As the Republicans struggle against the reality that they are no longer in complete control of the government, it seems a certain faction within the Democratic party is suffering from a similar delusion. The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) does not seem to recognize that the party base is not what it calls "centrist," translating from media/political speak as center-right corporatist, but is far more "progressive" than the DLC or mainstream media wish to recognize. The DLC still believes it is calling all of the shots and is, apparently, plotting behind the scenes as if it was business as usual.

The DLC was begun by the Clintonistas and, while Clinton's fiscal conservatism was, generally speaking, beneficial overall during the '90s, DLC-style corporatism also led him to join Rethuglicans in passing attrocious bills such as NAFTA. The DLC today still champions corporate-friendly, anti-consumer initiatives and functions more as a socially moderate wing of the GOP than a wing of the Democratic party. It uses this position to gain access to the mainstream media.

We the people are now bombarded daily with the message that Hillary Clinton is, by gosh, the certain frontrunner for '08. In fact, according to the mainstream "news," Hillary has been the frontrunner since even before the Congressional elections. It seems unlikely the media would make this claim before being sure of the future, but why bite then? While being Bill's significant other, a woman, and a senator doesn't hurt, it's also nice to have the DLC, Richard Mellon Scaife and media baron Rupert Murdoch on your side. The point here is not to bash the senator (who, truth be told, needs to hear more criticism from the base), but to raise questions about who owns the Democratic party's soul, the people or the corporations?

According to a continuing poll at Democrats.com targeting likely Democratic voters, Al Gore is leading the race not Hillary. As the "press" keeps calling DLCer Liebermann a Democrat when it was Rethuglican voters in Connecticut who gave him a victory over Ned Lamont, one should assume that mainstream polls do not represent Democratic voters and the media has an agenda in pushing Clinton.

The soup gets thicker however. It was not very long ago that political strategist and DLC Clintonista James Carville lashed out against insurgent DNC Chair Howard Dean. Not only was the attack completely unexpected, it came after the '06 election where it was widely agreed upon that Dean's 50 state strategy was incredibly effective in picking up Democratic wins, especially in areas considered GOP strongholds. Since group think becomes rampant among political cliques, it must be assumed that Carville's antagonism towards Dean, especially considering Dean's anti-big business money position, is prevalent within the DLC and among other Washington Democratic elites.

Now come rumors, as yet uncorroborated, that there are definitely movements within the party elite to oust Dean from the DNC. It seems Mr. Dean has planned the 2008 Democratic convention for Denver, CO. But suspected plotters are said to have desired to hold it New York. Currently there is scant evidence for this, but stop and put two and two together. Hillary is magically the frontrunner (with no input from the voters). The media is already pushing the idea that it's a two-way race between Hillary and Obama from which it seems Hillary has already been decided the winner. Hillary is a senator from New York. The simple syllogism suggests that this is a made for TV movie, another anointing of the presidential candidate by the unseen hands of the party inside circle in collaboration with their media lackies. The people's will be damned.

If we get no say in the party then there is no party. It's time to send, yet another, clear message to the DLC and any other Democrats who believe their political agendas are bigger than the voters. When you align with corporate interests over the interests of your constituents, you choose to oppose the people and the people will oppose you.

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.