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."

Activism

A little bit of background is necessary for today's activism. Between 1890 and 1952, seven presidents urged Congress to end lynching. Nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced over that period. None passed, thanks to southern Senators who wielded the power of the filibuster. With the civil rights laws of the 1960s, the issue of lynching sort of just...faded away. On February 7, 2005, Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) introduced a resolution "apologizing to the victims of lynching and the descendants of those victims for the failure of the Senate to enact anti-lynching legislation." You can read the official text of the resolution here. You'd think that this would be a no-brainer, right? Who wouldn't agree to this? Well, it's not that simple. You see, the resolution passed with a "voice vote," which simply means a vote of whomever is on the floor at that time. When the voice vote was called for this resolution, six Senators were on the floor, and none opposed. Here's the deal. With this resolution, Senators could co-sponsor the bill both before and after the vote. There is no excuse for a Senator to not co-sponsor this bill. Vote, sure. It was late, and it wasn't a "roll call" vote, with every Senator's vote recorded. No one is complaining that their Senator didn't vote for this bill. But there are 16 Senators who have not co-sponsored the bill. Courtesy of AMERICABlog, the 16 are:

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Michael Crapo (R-ID)
Michael Enzi (R-WY)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Trent Lott (R-MS)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
John Sununu (R-NH)
Craig Thomas (R-WY)
George Voinovich (R-OH)

What we're asking you to do is contact these Senators' offices (especially if you live in their home state), and find out exactly why they oppose a public apology for lynching. Don't let their staffers tell you that they weren't able to vote - again, the vote isn't the issue (for once). It's the co-sponsorship. We'd love to hear what they have to say - use the comments below to let us know!

News

White House Criticizes Cost of Senate Energy Bill. Pot, meet kettle. Aside from the audacity for the White House to criticize the Senate for spending too much money, it should come as no shocker that Democratic attempts to foster renewable energy use and mandated cuts in oil imports were also slammed by Bush. There's a $1.6 billion (over five years) cost in the bill that would give tax credits to Americans who purchase hybrid cars. There's also $1.4 billion in tax credits to generate electricity from renewable sources like wind and solar. Senator Maria Cantwell also plans to introduce an amendment that would force the government to find a way to reduce foreign dependency on oil by 40% over 20 years. Bush is up in arms over that too, claiming more studies are needed on climate change. We think that, in Bushspeak, that translates to "I want to keep giving big business and foreign markets more money that could probably be better spent here," but we're not entirely sure. Heaven forbid the Senate should try and pass something that would enhance the lives of Americans and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

GOP Worries Ethics Issue May Hurt Party in '06. Sticking with the Legislative Branch, we turn our attention to the House of Representatives. You may not believe this, but the GOP is concerned that the recent spate of ethical issues to besiege House Republicans will adversely affect them in next year's elections. They might even lose seats! Gasp! Liberal groups have begun running ads in key GOP congressional areas, linking in whatever way exists that district's Congressman with House leaders like Tom DeLay. Between questionable travel, gambling allegations and Bill "Based on the tape, she doesn't look to be in a persistive vegetative state to me" Frist, there are plenty of ethical questions to go around. Key Republican seats that are being targeted include districts in Ohio, Florida and North Carolina. Of course, there's a lot of work to do in the House, where Republicans control the majority 231-201-1-1, but we have to start somewhere, right?

White House Threatens Veto on House Spending Bill. Keeping our attention on the House, a bill is being considered that would provide $57.5 billion in funding to the Justice Department, NASA and the Commerce Department. The White House has said that they will veto the bill if a certain amendment is attached. Here's the catch. Both Representatives and Senators will routinely attach amendments to bills, even if they don't correspond. Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is expected to offer a measure limiting the Patriot Act by ending law enforcement's easy access to records on citizens' reading habits at libraries and bookstore purchases without a traditional search warrant. The White House doesn't like this, although it is expected to pass the House. Now, let's be honest. Are al-Qaeda terrorists going to walk into Borders and, with their own personal credit card, purchase $846 worth of bomb building books? No. But could someone purchase a large number of books on Islam for, say, a class? Sure. Would that person get put on a watch list because of it? Absolutely, and shame on this administration for even thinking that this is acceptable.

Editorials

New Worlds To Censor. It's been a little while, but you may remember the fight to bring the same television "decency" standards that are on network television to basic cable. Isn't that absurd? We have Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) and new FCC head Kevin Martin to thank for that. Here's the reason we find this absurd. While we don't agree with censorship on any level, we can at least understand the idea that public broadcasting and radio are media outlets that anyone with a television or a radio can view for free. In a house with no cable TV, you cannot "regulate" your children to not be able to watch FOX (although you might want to). We don't agree with it, but at least we can understand it. In just about every market in the country, cable and satellite programming requires the viewer to pay for it. The only way your kids are going to watch Comedy Central is if you've paid to have it in your home. That's a choice, folks. Couple that with V-Chip and password-protected channel and ratings blocking, and the decision has already been made. Besides, if you're allowing your seven-year-old to watch television by him/herself at 10 in the evening, you've got bigger problems than hearing Cartman say "Suck my balls." It's funny that the GOP claims to be the party of smaller government, except when they're in power.

The Interactive Truth. Why do less and less people trust the news? It's a trend that can't be denied - six out of ten Americans don't trust the press. Could it be a result of Newsweekgate? Could it be a result of the MSM not calling Bush on his lies? Or could it simply be that the American citizenry is sick of sloppy reporting? Whatever the reason, more and more Americans are turning to other television shows and the internet to get their news. There is no longer any reason to wait. In olden days, you'd get the morning paper and the 6:00 news, and that was your "fix." Now, we can find out immediately that Michael Jackson was found not guilty, or that an American Idol vote was fixed. Of course, as Stacy Schiff writes, the problem comes in the form of not being able to completely trust the factual truth of what you're reading online. Come to think about it, reading news on the internet is exactly like reading a newspaper, only cheaper.

Scream 2: The Sequel. Clever title, same old BS. With the MSM hopping all over Howard Dean's "white Christian party" comments, Howard Fineman and Tamara Lipper examine the question as to whether or not Howard Dean is successful. Even as some Congressional Democrats do everything in their power to distance themselves from Dean (a la Joe Biden), grassroots workers and DNC "employees" are excited to see the Dean they elected to DNC chair come to life. Under Dean, fundraising has been greatly enhanced, for example. The mistake that Fineman and Lipper make is assuming that Dean was talking about the Republican party as a whole and not, as he said later, Republican leadership. Still, Dean is doing remarkably well.

Activism

SWARM The MinuteMen. You might be aware of the so-called Minuteman Project, which consists of groups of civilians trying to prevent illegal immigration by patrolling the borders. Honestly, it doesn't sound like such a terrible idea if it wasn't born out of such hatred and fear. It claims to operate within the bounds of the law, but is really just a front for racist vigilantes. As Dave Neiwert points out here, the SWARM project may not be nice, but there's no use in playing nice with Nazis.

News

Panel: Interagency Confusion Hampers Intelligence Reform. You know, this is really getting ridiculous. If intelligence is going to be the backbone of the war on terror, then we're not going to get very far with our broken back. Last Monday, a group of panelists from the 9/11 commission took a look at the changes that have been implemented at the CIA and FBI since the attacks. And, not surprisingly, they've found that there's still a gigantic communications problem. Wasn't the PATRIOT Act supposed to fix all of this? It's been almost four years now since 9/11, but we still can't get things straight. We have intelligence czars and commissions and a house-cleaning at the CIA, but apparently we're still vulnerable. Maybe the only reason we haven't been attacked in the U.S. recently is because our soldiers in Iraq are more convenient targets. Brilliant strategy.

Envoy Says Canada Can't Fix U.S. Med Woes. When we talk about the question of prescription drug prices, a lot of us tend to think of Canada's system as a good answer. And why not? Canadian drugs are cheaper and more regulated, thus making them safer. But importing drugs from Canada will not solve the problem. It's not a question of the safety of the drugs - Canada's regulatory system is far stricter than that of the U.S. Instead, by turning our eyes northward, we are ignoring the problem of the rising costs of prescription drugs in this country. Democrats are, at least in part, trying to fix this problem with the health care agenda that they released last month. This agenda would allow prescription drugs to be imported from Canada and other countries, and it would give Medicare authority to negotiate lower prices with drug manufacturers in this country. Still, even though we're a long ways away from solving the problem of health care in this country, this is a start.

Military Brass Doubt Fighting Will Cure Iraq. No kidding. Military journeymen are coming to the conclusion that many of us with common sense have been saying for months now - fighting will not stop the insurgency. These same military folks say that diplomacy is the only way to solve what's going on in Iraq. We thought that that's what we're paying Karen Hughes for? Oh right - she hasn't been confirmed yet. Look, it's obvious that the fighting isn't solving the problem, and it's only causing more deaths. Hell, let's send Henry Kissinger and Jimmy Carter in there and see what happens - it couldn't be any worse than the current state of affairs.

Editorials

They Won't Go. Bob Herbert of the New York Times is increasingly becoming a must-read columnist. At times his moral indignation can still seem a little over-the-top, but as the cause for outrage grows, his disgust with the direction this country is going becomes more and more appropriate. In this editorial, he talks about how more and more people are refusing to fight in Iraq, and as a result, the military is turning to drastic measures to try and meet their quotas. They're upping enlistment bonuses, sugar-coating the risks, and lowering their standards. But if you want an explicit reason why we're growing more fond of Herbert, it's dead-on sentences like the following: "There's something frankly embarrassing about a government offering trinkets to children to persuade them to go off and fight - and perhaps die - in a war that their nation should never have started in the first place."

An Immodest Proposal. Mark Shields on why corporations might benefit from using military leadership as a guideline for running themselves (you know, without that whole "You're fired because you're gay thing."). For example, the 121,000 United Airlines past and present employees, who have had their pensions cut in half. Think that they are happy with United? Then they find out that, right after this news (due to brankruptcy hearings that have led to this), United CEO Glenn Tilton received a $4.5 million pension. Why do we tolerate this? Maybe we should join the military...

Losing Our Country. Paul Krugman on how the middle class in America has simply dissolved. The America we knew in the 1960s is gone, replaced by a much more polarized America. It's no surprise that the U.S.'s domestic economic policies have helped the upper class greatly, at the expense of the working classes, particularily since 1980. But why is the middle class a thing of the past? As Krugman writes, "To suggest that sustaining programs like Social Security, which protects working Americans from economic risk, should have priority over tax cuts for the rich is to practice 'class warfare.'" It's all about removing that social safety net, and making life better for the top 1%, isn't it?