Still Fighting

Activism

Join The Backbone Campaign. You know, it's not enough to just petition those in power to enact progressive policies. We also need to encourage so-called "progressive" elected officials to stand up to those in power. You know, to display a little backbone once in a while. That's why the Backbone Campaign is such a clever idea. You can go here to get a downloadable PDF postcard encouraging the official of your choice to request an inquiry into the Downing Street Memo. Or when your Democratic representative votes for legislation like the recent bankruptcy bill, which would hurt consumers and help predatory lenders, well, you can issue them a Spineless Citation. It's clever, and it gets the point across. Trust us - even Democrats aren't going to stand up for your values unless you make it costly for them not to do so.

News

Texas Governor Mobilizes Evangelicals. Sometimes, we just don't know what to say. So, we'll pose a question: Do you think that the religious right and the politicians that pander to them actually are true believers in what they say? Do you think they really don't understand that simply because a majority of citizens in the country are Christian that the laws should not conform to them, and that it's one of the principles our country was founded on? Or do you think that they realize they're blatant hypocrites for selectively practicing those teachings of Christianity (or the bastardizations of Christianity) they find convenient (being pro-life, anti-gay), while ignoring those they don't (being humble, being accepting, etc.) ? Frankly, we're not sure. It's hard for us to believe that people this craven and bigoted actually believe they're doing the right thing, but we'd rather believe they're simply stupid than downright evil. Regardless, either one is reprehensible, and the fact that some American voters still don't understand some of the basic tenets of this country scares the crap out of us.

U.S. Campaign Produces Few Convictions on Terrorism Charges. The headline is big news, but the subtitle, "Statistics Often Count Lesser Crimes", should really be titled, "Bush Lies Through His Teeth About PATRIOT Act". You might have already heard this story before, but this article actually has the details. Bush claimed that the war on terror, helped by the PATRIOT Act, has netted over 400 suspects, half of which had been convicted. But the Washington Post found that only 39 of the convictions were related to domestic terrorism. Fine, so Bush and his cronies lie. Hey, it's not acceptable, but did you expect anything less? The other aspect of this story is also important - as you read through it, doesn't it become apparently that we don't seem to know the first thing about catching terrorists? We're just casting as wide a net as possible, and, as it turns out, "most cases on the Justice Department list turned out to have no connection to terrorism at all." Look, we're all for being cautious, but this had got to stop. We're wasting money and time, and our approach simply isn't working. Sure, we haven't had another attack since 9/11, but once we do, won't it be too late?

U.S. troops reportedly gathering on Syria border. Look, we really don't know a whole lot about "Global News Matrix", or its source, the "Big News Network". But this story raises some important questions. First of all, it seems completely plausible. You can bet that this isn't doing anything good for our already-strained relations with Syria. Second of all, why do we have to read this article in some second-rate publication? Well, because we have very little faith that our national media would report something like this. Let's hope it's not true, but at the same time, don't be surprised if there's an international incident in a few weeks.

Editorials

History's Rhyme. The Cunning Realist is at it again, with yet another insightful commentary, this time comparing Iraq to Vietnam. When the war started, we didn't want to believe that Iraq could turn out anything like Vietnam. We thought we had learned our lessons. The comparisons seemed absurd. We had a clear goal (the removal of Saddam and the WMD), and a concrete enemy. Our military was vast and well-prepared. But it's not like we weren't warned - it's just that those who dared to make the comparison were mocked and ignored. Now look at what we have. It's really bordering on the absurd, how in just 30 short years, with some of the same exact people involved, we've made the same mistakes. You gotta wonder if the Administration knew exactly what it was doing, damn the consequences, and decided to use the war solely for political gain. It's either that, or they're just incredibly stupid and arrogant. Frankly, we think it's a little of both.

They Write Letters. Who writes letters? Representative John Conyers writes letters. John Conyers also holds hearings regarding the Downing Street Memo, when Congress refuses to investigate it, or even allocate him a room for doing so himself. John Conyers even manages to hold his hearing despite Republicans scheduling 11 consecutive floor votes to conflict with his hearing in order to prevent Congresspeople from attending them. (You gotta wonder what they have to fear if the DSM is such "old news"...) And, finally, John Conyers writes a letter to the Washington Post when the normally reasonable Dana Milibank writes an article mocking and belittling John Conyers' hearing. We need more of John Conyers.

The frivolous case for tort law change. Here's a topic we haven't touched in a while. Basically, not surprisingly, one of the GOP's assertions is that the tort system needs to be reformed because of all the "frivolous lawsuits" that are driving up insurance premiums and costing citizens tons of money. And, of course, when you hear about McDonald's being sued for its too-hot coffee, or other seemingly nonsensical lawsuits, the case seems reasonable. But it only seems reasonable if you listen to the hype and don't look at the facts. Basically, tort reform is one way for corporations to get richer, and for Americans to lose more of their rights. A telling sign is in "Appendix D" - the chart that shows insurance industry profits over time. If they weren't rising so sharply, then just maybe tort system critics would have some sort of reasonable case. But it's plain as day - those "increased costs" don't seem to be hurting the insurance industry at all. The article's a long one, but that's because a complex system requires detailed analysis. Read it all, but the conclusion's what's important: "The economic case made by critics for changing the U.S. tort law system can only be called frivolous."