Still Fighting

Activism

We've discussed the "pharmacists declining to dispense Plan B" fiasco for weeks. But, as John over at AmericaBlog shows us, now Target is trying to justify their pharmacists' reticence to dispense Plan B by saying that they are covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Huh? It's very simple, really. Pharmacists are paid to do a job. Not part of a job. Not a job when it's convenient. A job. John recommends contacting Target to ask them about this absurd policy, and in the link above, he provides the link. Not filling a prescription for "religious reasons," and then trying to hide behind the Civil Rights Act, is just about the most asinine thing we've ever heard. Oh, and don't forget that most of these religious fanatics don't mind using the Civil Rights Act when it benefits them, but then they turn around and say that homosexuals aren't entitled to those same rights. The hypocrisy is just astounding.

News

Massive bid-rigging scam alleged in Iraq. There's that word again: Alleged. But let's just assume, for sake of argument, that this allegation is true. Think about what this means for you, the American taxpayer. You pay your money to the government. The government then uses that money to finance an illegal war. But that's not all. The money for the war goes to corporations so they do work in Iraq. Then, those corporations take that money and use it to bribe more officials to get more contracts, and more of your tax money. Not only that, but the Administration then argues that programs like Social Security and Medicare are too expensive, and so need to be cut, all while cutting taxes for corporations and wealthy people, who funnel that money right back into the system in the form of bribes. Millions of YOUR dollars are missing in Iraq. This is the first U.S. criminal case brought against coalition officials. We bet it won't be the last.

A 'fiscal hurricane' on the horizon. We don't mean to be so gloomy all of the time, but would you prefer false optimism? We thought not. Fortunately, more and more politicians are realizing that we could be in deep financial trouble in the near future. Pointing that out is not being pessimistic; rather, it's the realistic and responsible thing to do. "To hear Walker, the nation's top auditor, tell it, the United States can be likened to Rome before the fall of the empire. Its financial condition is 'worse than advertised,' he says. It has a 'broken business model.' It faces deficits in its budget, its balance of payments, its savings — and its leadership." The deficit is a serious problem. We've made promises to future generations in the form of Medicare, Medicard, and Social Security, that are going to be very difficult to fully keep, especially if we continue on the track we've been on. At some point, this won't be a theoretical notion any more, but will start affecting "real people" - "Higher interest rates. Lower wages. Shrinking pensions. Slower economic growth. A lesser standard of living. Higher taxes in the future for today's younger generation. Less savings. More consumption. Plunging stock and bond prices. Recession." It's time we had some responsible leadership in Washington, even if that means electing people who don't only tell us good news, and require some sacrifice.

U.S. Goals Are Thwarted At Pro-Democracy Forum. Last weekend, there was an international conference in the Middle East. The stated goal was to advance democracy, but it ended without a formal declaration, leaving the United States a tad disappointed, needless to say. The idea was that such a declaration would bind countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa to "expand democratic practices, to enlarge participation in political and public life, to foster the roles of civil society, including NGOs, and to widen women's participation in the political, economic, social, cultural and education fields and to reinforce their rights and status in society while understanding that each country is unique." Sounds good to us. Unfortunately, our leaders have failed dramatically at "selling" democracy, and have no moral authority anymore, so it's kinda tough to get any other country to respect our desires.

Editorials

Bush Rewrites History to Criticize His Anti-War Critics. David Corn, of the Nation, writes an extremely important piece. This administration loves to call out anyone who criticizes the war, by saying that they are un-American. And if they actually voted "for the war?" Then they are a flip-flopping, unpatriotic bastard. It's easy to forget, but important to not, that Congress didn't vote "for the War." Congress voted to give Bush the power to go to war if he deemed it necessary, after taking specific measures. The difference is staggering. Congresspeople from both parties had put faith in Bush to find a negotiated settlement. Obviously, that faith was misplaced. And now, even people like Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) are lashing out at the White House for their attacks on critics of the war. "To question your government is not unpatriotic -- to not question your government is unpatriotic," said Hagel. And if people like former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) can pony up and admit that they made a mistake in voting for this war in 2002, why can't "average" citizens do the same? What kind of administration has the audacity to tell us that we can't criticize them, particularly when that administration went out of its way to cook the books and manipulate the intelligence to get us to war, as Larry Johnson writes. As the lies become unraveled (and make no mistake, they are), it's becoming more and more apparent just which party actually gives a damn about this country and its citizens. Back in 1998, Ann Coulter wrote a trashy book called High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton. If Republicans actually believe that Clinton's "crimes" were so heinous, what do they think of a president who lied to the country and killed 2,079 American soldiers (and counting)?

Imperial presidency, invisible Congress. If the above block of editorials wasn't enough, here's another one: All of the previous treachery oulined would be irrelevant if Congress had simply done its job and stopped this imperial Presidency, but instead, it decided to be invisible. Andrew Rudalevige at Nieman Watchdog has some important questions he thinks the press needs to ask our Congress. Why did they give Bush so much power? When are they going to stop letting him trample over their role in government? Do they have any interest in checking the power of this Presidency that has run so far off the rails? American citizens would like to know.

Blogger Commentary

Chalabi, Syria, and Iran: Cambodia Redux? Ah, Representative John Conyers; how we love your candor. If the government was a family, Conyers would be the old mother-in-law, who has been around for ages, always says the truth, gets a rise out of the rest of the family for it (particularly when he talks about the "other half"), and is routinely dead-on correct. In this column on the Huffington Post, Conyers calls out Bush, drawing strangely accurate parallels between Iraq and Viet Nam. Conyers has a good finger on the pulse of government, and it wouldn't surprise us at all to find out that Conyers' predictions turn out to be true. It would certainly disturb us, but it wouldn't surprise us.

No Longer Ready For His Closeup. Here's the thing about Bob Woodward: he was a brilliant reporter/writer. He could capture a story so perfectly and write it in such a way as to really make you care. His investigative skills were never in doubt. But, as the Cunning Realist writes, his holier-than-thou silence on what he knew about Plamegate is simply nauseating. He's become a shell of what he once was, and it's that very reason why newspaper readership is down: when you treat your readers as the lowest ones on the totem pole, pretty soon they are going to give you the finger. (Note that Woodward has since apologized for keeping his silence, saying that "I didn't want anything out there that was going to get me subpoenaed" by Patrick Fitzgerald.) Is it possible to apologize and make yourself look even worse?

Activism

1000 Organizing Events and Counting. We've mentioned this before, but it's worth reminding everyone: Tomorrow is the Democratic Party's National Organizing Kickoff. And in keeping with what fueled Howard Dean's campaign, the DNC is relying on the grassroots to fuel the party. It's a wise idea, but it depends on you to make it work. "Tomorrow night - in all fifty states (and in 20 other countries) - Democrats will come together and begin the work that's needed to win in 2006 and 2008." If you want to host an event, you can go here to do so. If you just want to attend an event, search for one here. It's your country - be a part of taking it back!

News

Senators Agree on Detainee Rights. We've been talking about this for a few days now, and it looks like we're coming to some sort of consensus. Of course, the final "agreement" doesn't give detainees full rights, but given the fact that we're dealing with Republicans in power, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) was lucky to get the concessions that he did. If today's vote passes (Note: The Republican version passed), detainees will have the right to appeal any military tribunal ruling. Although this is a big step for Democrats, it's still disgusting that we're having this discussion in the first place. Couple that with Cheney's desire to eliminate the McCain torture amendment, and we're embarrased to have people like that running the country.

Review of 'Plan B' Pill Is Faulted. We've speculated that the FDA delay in selling Plan B over the counter was politically motivated. Now we know that it was, as is evidenced by a GAO report that shows that approval was never going to be given, regardless of the outcome of the scientific review. The Government Accountability Office, the White House watchdog group, if you will, finally concluded that then-FDA Commissioner Mark B. McClellan and others were involved in the unsubstantiated disapproval. The GAO can't say for sure, because McClellan wouldn't speak to them. Still, we see once again that politics trumps science, and that's a sorry state of affairs for a government agency that depends on science to make educated decisions.

Parents Carry Burden of Proof in School Cases, Court Rules. This is just depressing. In a 6-2 ruling (with John Roberts recusing himself), the Supreme Court decided that parents who are unhappy with their school, district's special education programs must carry the burden of proof. What this means, generally, is that "parents who disagree with a school system's special-education plan for their child have the legal burden of proving that the plan will not provide the "appropriate" education to which federal law entitles all children with disabilities." (Sandra Day O'Connor's full 26 page majority opinion can be found here). In a way, this isn't fully the SCOTUS's fault. But what does that mean? The Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) was designed in such a way that schools must (with parents' consent) test students with special needs, and then create an IEP, or Individualized Education Program, for that student. The way IDEA was originally written in 1970 didn't make it clear who's responsibility it was to address issues with the IEP (it's been subsequently updated several times, but this has never been discussed). What this ruling says is that if parents feel that the IEP isn't working, it is the parents' responsibility to prove that it isn't. Surprisingly, the Bush administration initially favored the parents in this ruling, before, ahem, flip-flopping to the state's side when the decision came before the court. With the burden of proof on the parents, administrations won't be so quick to look so hard to make sure they are doing the right thing, particularly in more rural areas where money and expertise is limited. If the burden of proof were on the schools (that is to say, the experts), maybe schools wouldn't be so quick to jump and create an IEP that won't work.

Editorials

Health Economics 101. Paul Krugman's one of our favorite political writers, because he's not afraid to point out the moral shortcomings of the Bush administration, and to pull no punches. But he's at his best when talking about his area of expertise, economics, and explaining how it affects every day people. A side specialty of his is moral outrage, and discussing the health care system allows him to engage both his strengths. In his latest missive, he explains why the GOP solution to everything, namely, throw a little capitalism at the problem, won't work with health care. Preach on, Professor Krugman.

Facing the Reality of Choice. Progressives are pro-choice - that much is obvious. But as much as the right-wing would like to paint pro-choice people as pro-abortion, that's simply not the case. In fact, all reasonable pro-choice people want to reduce the number of abortions in America, which is an admirable goal. It's important to keep that perspective and understand how a women choosing to have an abortion is a tragic, difficult choice. We want less women to be forced into that decision, although we firmly believe it's an option they should have. This editorial outlines one woman's experience during a Planned Parenthood visit, and makes some good points that people on both sides of the abortion fence would do well to keep in mind.

Blogger Commentary

They Won't Stop Lying Until You Start Impeaching. Yesterday we linked to a Washington Post article entitled "Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument." In it, the White House is called out for their pre-war intelligence. Also yesterday, the White House was quick to respond by saying that the problem was with the actual intelligence, and reminded us that the The Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction concluded back in March that "in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments." Stirling Newberry points out that the lying continues, and that it's got to stop. And the only way it's going to stop is with Democrats standing up and continuing to pour the pressure on the White House. Come on, it's been more than half a decade since our last impeachment - what are we waiting for?

Our Care vs. Their Care. Ezra Klein discusses a study that was released last week. It compares the patient care experiences in the following countries: Australia, America, Canada, Germany, England, and New Zealand. Not surprisingly, the U.S. ranks near the bottom in pretty much everything. Also not surprisingly, "the United States is an outlier for financial burdens on patients and patients forgoing care because of costs." Wait times are too long. Patients are dissatisfied. After-hours access is poor. How long before we can no longer claim to be the world's superpower with a straight face?

Activism

What's happened to political discourse in this country? When Bill O'Reilly can endorse a terrorist attack on San Francisco, and no one bats an eyelash, that's a gigantic problem. We're here to bat a few eyelashes, and do a bit more than that. The problem is not so much that Bill O'Reilly said those things, although it's quite sickening. No, the problem is that his rhetoric has become the norm on the right, and that there are actually people out ther who take his words to heart. But maybe we can make O'Reilly and those of his ilk realize just how irresponsible they're being. It won't be through logic - they threw that out the window long ago. Rather, we'll hit 'em in the wallet. Go here and get a list of some of O'Reilly's sponsors, as well as local stations that carry his shows. Then, make sure they know the type of commentary they're endorsing, and that they won't be receiving any of your business. It's time we stopping blowing off O'Reilly and his buddies as kooks, and started treating them as real threats that need to be stopped.

News

Amman Bombings Reflect Zarqawi's Growing Reach. How much more proof do we need that our approach in Iraq is doing more harm than good? The loss of innocent life is disturbing enough. But on top of that, we should make no mistake about it - the emergence and success of Zarqawi is our fault. We don't repeatedly state that Bush's War has inflammed terrorism because we want to prove him wrong. We say it because it's true and we want him to change course before the problem is entirely out of control. The article outlines how Zarqawi already may have "eclipsed al Qaeda's founder, Osama bin Laden, in terms of prominence and appeal to Islamic radicals worldwide." He has been able to attract thousands of fighters to Iraq, which maybe be the sign of the "emergence of another Afghanistan." His goal is likely the elimination of Israel, and he's well on his way. Way to go, George. How many more people must die for your political gain?

House Bill Counters Eminent Domain Ruling. Hey, once in a while, we see good news come out of Washington. Of course, it's become a little more recent, with the collapse of Bush's political support, and Republicans jumping ship. Maybe they realized that the Supreme Court ruling that allowed "local governments to seize property needed for private development projects that generate tax revenue," wasn't something that went over too well with the public. Maybe they realized that given all their recent woes, it's not too wise to give local governments more power, if they weren't going to be controlling those local governments. So the House passed a bill 376-38, which "would withhold federal money from state and local governments that use powers of eminent domain to force businesses and homeowners to give up their property for commercial uses." Works for us. While it can be true in some cases, we're sick of the argument that somehow commercial interests are the same as public interests. It's nice to see the House give Americans (back) rights once in a while.

Civil Rights Focus Shift Roils Staff At Justice. It looks like Republicans are now going out of their way to pit themselves against Democrats and the American public. How else can you explain the purge of lawyers at the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division? One-fifth of all the division's lawyers left in FY2005, in part because the administration is trying to push out those that don't agree with "conservative civil rights" values. At the same time, the number of actual discrimination cases that Justice is handling has dropped. This entire affair is ridiculous, and it shows conservative "values" once again in action: we don't care about the little guy. How much more is Bush going to try and mold the government into an image of himself, and how much more are Americans going to suffer?

Editorials

Framing the Poor. Tim Wise writes a long, but incredibly detailed and enlightening article on the state of the poor in New Orleans, and why Katrina affected them the way it did. Of course, the conservative narrative was one that framed "low-income black folks in the streets of New Orleans as a collection of deviant criminals." Wise details some lies that were perpetuated post-Katrina. Some were pushed by the media, and some were just circulated over email, but all painted the picture that the victims, "had, ultimately, gotten what they deserved." Wise then thoroughly debunks these myths, including the idea that many of these victims were on welfare. Our government has systematically marginalized these people, and to then blame them for this tragedy is almost as cruel as the suffering they had to endure in the hurricane.

Repairing Journalism. Sydney Schanberg, of the Village Voice, writes about how Plamegate exposed some serious flaws in journalism, and how it's high time we fix them. How do reporters put together a news story? Mostly, off of a government press release. But the building of a story has always remained shrouded in mystery, and it often times hampers the story. In Plamegate, for example, Tim Russert spoke with Scooter Libby about information that wasn't classified; that was, in effect, public knowledge. So why did Russert give Libby confidentiality? It's obvious that journalism has become just another Washington "give and take," and that's why our MSM has been so unreliable.

Blogger Commentary

Reminder of GOP Attacks on Clinton's Motives & Honesty re: Iraq & Kosovo. We provide you with links like this not to "prove" that Democrats are right, but rather so that you can feel empower with the facts. Every day, you might encounter someone that blithely asserts that "Democrats had the same intelligence that Bush did when going to war with Iraq." or that "Questioning the war undermines the morale of the troops." It might be tempting to let such ignorance go in the name of harmony, but should you choose to dispel such falsehoods, we want you to be well-armed with facts and confident. So, as Democrats finally force the issue of why we went to war, Republicans label such questioning as unpatriotic. Glenn Greenwald provides a nice rebuttal to those that claim that implying the President went to war for anything other than the purest of reasons is somehow anti-American. He incriminates them with their own words about the war in Kosovo. Hypocrisy, thy name is GOP.


On Bush, the Dems, Jon Stewart, Hunter Thompson, Bill Moyers, and King (not Don). John Cusack is just like you or me. He's an American citizen, and he's entitled to his opinion. So his piece on the Huffington Post is pretty interesting, all things considered. Cusack is asking the same question we're trying to ask: Where are the Democrats? Sure, the closed-door Senate session was a good start, but that's all it was: a start. Even this week's elections were the beginning of something, but again, only the beginning. Cusack cuts through a lot of the BS, and leaves us wondering the same things: when 2008 rolls around, will we be doomed for another four years of Republican leadership?