Still Fighting

Activism

Volunteer with OneWorldHealth. What is OneWorld Health? Well, according to their website, they're a Nonprofit Pharmeceutical Company. What a novel idea! Providing helpful drugs to people not for profit, but simply because you want to help people. Imagine the possibilities. They were founded 5 years ago, and currently have $25 million dollars "at work", fighting infectious disease around the world. Their stated values are "Integrity, Courage, and Collaboration". Frankly, we can't imagine many organizations more worth your time. So hop on over and volunteer your time at the link above, or at least donate here.

News

Justice Staff Saw Texas Districting As Illegal. Remember when Tom DeLay spearheaded the redistricting of Texas, which caused several Democrats to lose their House seats? At the time, we were all very mad, and wondered how it could have been legal. Funny story: It isn't. Six lawyers and two analysts in the Justice Department unanimously agreed that the move was illegal, because it "diluted black and Hispanic voting power in two congressional districts. It also said the plan eliminated several other districts in which minorities had a substantial, though not necessarily decisive, influence in elections." These eight individuals crafted a memo to this effect, but were overruled by "senior officials." The redistricting was a gross misuse of power, and the case is on the Supreme Court's docket. Let's hope that the Supreme Court sees it for what it really is: A illegal ploy to engineer the Republicans takeover of Congress.

FBI's Sham Candidate Crawled Under W.Va.'s Political Rock. We're astounded not only that this happened, but that it's considered legal. In 2004, as part of a plea agreement, Thomas E. Esposito ran for the West Virginia House of Delegates. He was one of 10 candidates on the ballot. He received 2,175 votes. And he never had any intention of taking office, because he ran at the behest of the FBI to help flush out corruption in the election process. He created a campaign, with bumper stickers, phone calls, gladhandling, and all the rest. So the government was sued over election fraud, where the lawyer argued that the citizens who voted for Esposito were robbed of a constitutional right. But, get this, the Judge sided with the government, and here's why. "Corruption in Logan County had been endemic 'for longer than living memory' and that the bogus election campaign might have been the only way to root it out." Although that's certainly true, and we applaud the FBI for trying to crack down on this, the FBI has clearly overstepped their bounds on this case. This isn't a vote for class president: This is a state's House of Delegates. So not only is the FBI sending a message that they don't care, but the court is sending a message that "the ends justify the means." The court ruled in favor of the government because of the situation in West Virginia. The judge, David A. Faber, asked the lawyer during the hearing, "What else could the Justice Department have done?" The lawyer replied, "Not violate the constitutional rights of the voters of Logan County." Well, we know how this administration feels about the sanctity of elections. This just adds to that sacrilege.

Most Americans Doubt Bush Has Victory Plan. On the heels of Bush's "Victory Plan" speech, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll showed that 55% of Americans do not believe that Bush has a plan that will achieve victory for the United States in Iraq, although it is conincidental that what we know of Bush's plan is eerily similar to Senator Joe Biden's (D-DE). See Editorial #2 (Bullet Points Over Baghdad) for more. In further Iraq news, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), best known for his call for America to leave Iraq "now," recently told a civic group that our Army is "Broken, worn out." He, like so many others, admits that he was wrong to vote for the Iraq War. There's absolutely nothing wrong with admitting that. No decision should ever be made without re-examining it. If we knew then what we know now (or even what we think we know), far fewer people would have voted to authorize Bush to go to war. But we were a nation scared, and Bush preyed on that. Now Bush wants us to continue to "stay the course," which isn't really an option, when you get right down to it. Murtha also predicted that it will cost $50 billion to upgrade military equipment nationwide, but says the federal government is already reducing future purchases to save money. Of course they are. That's Bush's M.O., isn't it? Save today, screw tomorrow. Well, actually, screw up today, and screw tomorrow.

Editorials

If America Left Iraq. What would happen if America left Iraq right now? Of course, no one really knows, but maybe it's something we should start seriously thinking about. The President likely would argue that leaving Iraq would basically directly the denotation of nuclear weapons in every major U.S. city, but he has no clue what he's talking about. However, Nir Rosen does. He convincingly argues that our presence there does more harm than good, and there's basically no hope for a "western-style" democracy anyways, so we might as well give up the ghost. He believes that our presence is fueling the insurgency, and that if we left, it would likely stop. Additionally, Sunnis would realize that they can't defeat the Shiite majority, and would try to work with them. Furthermore, hopefully Iraqis would band together and ensure that Iran doesn't take over. Why should we believe Nir Rosen? Well, he did spend six months in Iraq post-invasion, and as far as we can tell, unlike Bush, he doesn't have a track record of utter failure.

Bullet Points over Baghdad. We know Bush's "Victory Plan" is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Paul Krugman breaks down exactly why that's so. The plan is full of talking points and tired cliches, but Krugman writes that it's actually a test for the media. Will the media hold Bush accountable for this "plan?" Conventional wisdom says no, but lately some members of the MSM have grown a backbone. No, as Krugman writes, "The point isn't just that the administration is trying, yet again, to deceive the public. It's the fact that this attempt at deception shows such contempt - contempt for the public." Should we expect anything more from this administration?

Blogger Commentary

O'Reilly Brought Christmas War to Cavuto. Look, usually, Bill O'Reilly's not worth our time. But Friday's usually our day to kick back and just make fun of crazy Republicans. Sure, it's not particularly productive, although we can't imagine any of our readers would actually waste their time with him, and it is important to know just exactly what kind of psychosis he's promoting. Lately, he's been engaging in his annual "Save Christmas" crusade, setting up "secular, liberal" strawmen who are out to eliminate Christmas. It's just plain old nuts. But unfortunately, some people take him seriously, which is how we get from harmless stupidity to people trying to fight against the "liberal courts" out to destroy Christianity. For adding fuel to the fire, or taking credit for lower gas prices, or just being an ass in general simply to further his ratings, Bill O'Reilly may just be the worst person in the world. Sound like hyperbole? Well, maybe, but at least Keith Olbermann agrees with us.

The President Makes a Speech for Peace. Ok, before reading the rest of this paragraph, go to the link and read it. It's quick, we promise. Don't worry, we'll wait. Go now! Ok, done? So, this might seem like a cute little joke, taking "Vietnam" out of an old speech and replacing it with "Iraq", but this is really no laughing matter. The rhetoric surrounding Iraq and the justification for continuing the war is eerily similar to that of Vietnam. Do we want to go through Vietnam again? Apparently, people like Cheney and Rumsfeld do, given that they served under Nixon, and didn't get the memo about what happened to him. On top of the similarities between the two war themselves, it now looks like rationale for Vietnam was faked too.

Activism

Stop Drive-Through Mastectomies. Sick of politics? So are we. Just kidding. But here's what must surely be an apolitical issue, right? Surely, the idea of a woman with breast cancer who has been forced to get a mastectomy to save her life, and then is booted out of the hospital to save insurance costs is abhorrent to people of any political persuasion, right? So then why does it still go on? The Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 2005 would require that all women being undergoing be mastectomies be guaranteed reasonable coverage. Go to the link and sign the petition supporting this important legislation.

News

GOP Closer to Breaking Up Left-Leaning 9th Circuit Appeals Court. Here's the problem with electing conservatives: They do long-term damage to the country that can't simply be undone in a couple of election cycles. The recent incarnation of conservatives seek total dominance of the government. They're not satisfied with just two of the three branches, even though we've seen what atrocities they've already wrought. No, they want to rule them all. So, even though it's the only Appeals Courts left dominated by Democratic nominees, the Ninth Circuit has to go. Legislators claim that "it's too large to administer justice", whatever that means. Even conservative judges think it's a ridiculous idea. It's solely politics at work - break up any last vestiges of liberal courts (even though the Ninth Circuit works just fine) and engineer a lasting conservative rule of the judicial branch. This is why Republican domination of the government cannot be allowed to occur again.

Air Force Erred With No-Bid Iraq Contract, GAO Says. Once again, the Pentagon is looking out for its friends, instead of the country. Last year, the Pentagon pressured the Air Force into awarding a no-bid contract to REEP, Inc. The contract required REEP to find bilingual speakers "committed to a democratic Iraq," for some propaganda and "government advisement." REEP went ahead and employed Iraqi political exiles for the job. The first problem is that the Air Force didn't bid the contract, which means that no one else had an opportunity to submit a proposal for the work. The Pentagon says that they felt like there wasn't enough time to seek proposals, and REEP was the only qualified company, so that's who they chose. Never mind that there are (at least) two other companies capable of doing this work. But those companies probably aren't under the thumb of the Pentagon, and wouldn't have used the political exiles, which is problem number 2. Problem number three reared its head when the Pentagon decided not to compete an extension of the same contract, and award it to REEP again. Thankfully, the GAO has called the Air Force on this egregious misuse of taxpayer monies. However, we don't expect the Pentagon to change their spots over this.

IRS Complaint Filed Against Focus on the Family. We love this story, if for no other reason then it shows liberals on the offensive, for once. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has asked the IRS to investigate whether or not James Dobson's Focus on the Family should lose its tax-exempt status, based on Dobson's endorsement of candidates in 2004. You may recall that a liberal pastor in California is under investigation for the same charges. But what's most amusing about this are the views of the right. This editorial, in Texas's The Monitor, tries to fight back against the charge, and fails. Instead of trying to defend Dobson, the editorial attacks CREW for being partisan, and claims that there's a double standard at work, and perhaps CREW should be investigated and have their tax-exempt status revoked. News flash: CREW doesn't participate in electioneering. The editorial cites CREW's website. "Moreover, a look at CREW’s Web site indicates that the vast majority of those it targets for alleged ethics violations are Republicans. . .But CREW has made only a token effort to go after Democrats — two of 13 members of Congress identified by the organization as "most corrupt" were Democrats — suggesting a one-sided agenda." Or, perhaps it suggests that there just aren't as many Democrats whose corruption approaches that of Republicans. The right's arguments here are hollow, and don't add up. How often are we going to see Democrats use facts and Republicans use innuendo and slander before we do something about it?

Editorials

The War on Our Children. When a Congressman from California speaks, we listen. First it was "Duke" Cunningham admitting that he is a liar and a fraud, by accepting $2.4 million in bribes. Now, Pete Stark (D-CA) has an editorial up that blasts Congress for its poor short-sightedness. Republicans in Congress are creating so many roadblocks for Americans who are under the age of 18 that their lives are going to be harder than ever. Cutting Head Start: check. Making job training for mothers of children six and under harder: check. Under funding a bad No Child Left Behind Act: check. Not raising the minimum wage: check. How else can Republicans screw up our children? Oh yes, by proposing to cut $14.3 billion from federal student aid programs. If we're facing such a money crisis, why are House Republicans continuing to cut taxes? Stark puts it far better than we could. "If the United States can find $250 billion for a failed war in Iraq and give American millionaires an average tax break of $41,574 apiece in 2006, then the most affluent country in the world can find the funds to improve its schools and workplaces. Our future depends on it."

Starving The Beast. Republicans love the idea of "starving the beast," the idea that less government is better, and that states and private enterprise are better equipped to deal with issues. But even before Hurricane Katrina, it's obvious that parts of the country were woefully unprepared. Take Louisiana, for instance. Poverty; teen pregnancy; low teacher pay; these were all occurring in Louisiana in disturbing proportions. Louisiana, unable to financially deal with the Katrina impact, has had to cut funding to Medicaid and hospitals (nearly $1 billion worth). So while Republicans "starve the beast," the people in Louisiana starve. Just dandy.

Blogger Commentary

Mark Warner, Batting a Thousand. Governor and Presidential hopeful Mark Warner (D-VA) didn't grant clemency to Robin Lovett because of a stunt, or because he didn't want the stigma of the "1,000th person executed since 1976" label. Warner had denied clemency to eleven previous executions. No, Warner granted clemency because the DNA evidence that might have cleared Lovett was destroyed, and Lovett's conviction wasn't strong enough, in Warner’s eyes, to merit the death penalty. Warner did the right thing, and in doing so, elevated his status in the eyes of liberals. Michael Oates Palmer looks at the case, and why Warner did the right thing.

Mexamerica. Digby chimes in with the next big topic. After failing with Social Security and, in a sense, the war, Bush is trying to find something to build a legacy on. The answer may be in a wall to separate the U.S. and Mexico. Not a fence, and not a "Great Wall," but an honest to goodness $8 billion dollar prison-type wall. "[A] barrier consisting of a 'pyramid' of rolls of barbed wire piled 6 to 8 feet high. Alongside it would run a deep ditch, followed by a fence, a security road, another fence, another ditch, and then another wire pyramid. Cameras and motion detectors would monitor the fence to create a formidable barrier 40 to 50 yards wide. The cost: $2 million to $4 million a mile, or $4 billion to $8 billion in total." Despite wingnuts like Pat Buchanan who have no sense of history, it's true that some 500,000 Mexicans make it into America every year. This is nothing new. But this $8 billion dollar idea isn't the solution. Do you have any suggestions?

Activism

CA-48th: 8.5 days left...Virtual Phone Bankers Needed. Remember how Paul Hackett nearly won a special election in a Ohio district that went overwhelmingly for Bush? Remember how the left "blogosphere" rallied around Hackett and helped to boost his campaign? Well, we need a repeat of that. You may not even be aware of the fact that there's a special election in California's 48th district in a little over a week, but there is. Steve Young (not the ex-QB) is running and needs your help. If you're not in CA, you can help by virtual phone banking - just go to the link above for instructions. If you are in CA, then volunteer, and vote if you're in the 48th! We'll take the Congress back, one seat at a time.

News

Cheney Sidesteps Travel Disclosure Rules. You know, in the grand scheme of things, this isn't a big deal. Really, this is the mastermind behind the Iraq war debacle, our torture policy, the CIA leak, and who knows what else? But that's exactly the point - it's critical to a functioning democracy to know what its leaders are up to. In fact, they refuse to even accept reimbursements from the organizers of the events to which he travels, precisely so they don't have to disclose those payments. We don't know how much we're paying to subsidize the trips of our Vice-President, and most of the time, we don't even know where he's going. It's pretty crappy that we're being stuck with the bills of his travel that seems to be almost exclusively for political purposes, but that's nothing new with this Administration. No, the point of this is that Cheney apparently doesn't feel he has any obligation to inform the electorate of what he's doing or where he's going, even those we're his boss. Of course, the Veep's office believes it's completely justified: "Their view is that the vice president is a constitutional office that is not subject to the laws that others in the executive branch are. They have been consistent in that." Well, at least they've been consistent...

The FBI's Secret Scrutiny. Do you trust the government? Because that's ultimately what the Patriot Act comes down to. If you trust the government not to abuse it's power, and to use their powers to go after those intent on causing Americans harm, then there's nothing wrong with the Patriot Act. On the other hand, if you pay just a bit of attention to what's going on, you realize how easy it is for a group of cynics and greedy powermongers can abuse that trust and game the system. That's what's happening now, and it's that atmosphere of abusiveness that makes the Patriot Act so dangerous. Read this story and learn about the FBI's monitoring of private citizens for whatever reason they deem appropriate. Since Bush has taken office, his Administration has steadily worked to lower to standards of what proof and justification is necessary to monitor and intrude upon private citizens. Do you really trust them to have our best interests at heart and exercise the appropriate restrait? Us neither.

Harper's Index for October 2005. We've always been big fans of Harper's Index. Some highlights from last month's numbers: "Rank of 2004 among the most fiscally reckless years in U.S. history, according to the comptroller general: 1", "Minutes that NBC and CBS spent covering the Darfur genocide last year: 8", "Total U.S. spending on poppy eradication and other antidrug efforts in Afghanistan last year: $780,000,000", and "Amount it would have cost to purchase the country’s entire 2004 poppy crop: $600,000,000." Sometimes, numbers are also worth 1000 words.

Editorials

Guatemala, home of powerful drug runners. Often, we'll cover the same issues over and over again, but once in a while we like to mix things up. So, here's an issue that hasn't yet been mentioned on Still Fighting: The Guatemalan drug trade. Some in America believe that Guatemala is a "transfer point for 75 percent of the cocaine that gets into the U.S." Unfortunately, Guatemala doesn't seem to be doing anything to combat the problem. They don't seem to want to cooperates with our efforts to stem the drug trade, and so "[i]nstead of extradition, the DEA is now luring suspects into the U.S. and then arresting them." That seems to be a pretty ineffective method of fighting the problem. It'd be nice if we knew more about Guatemala's complicity in the global drug war, and what the U.S. is doing to pressure them to aid us in the fight. Hey media: Do your jobs!

So you want details about who lied. The ever-dwindling group of Bush defenders continue to insist that he never lied about WMDs in Iraq, and that it was just "bogus intelligence". Well, the fact that Cheney and his cohorts actively distorted that intelligence has been quite well established on this blog, but war supporters continue to insist that Cheney and Bush didn't lie in the run up to the war. They keep asking for details. One might be able to argue that "it isn't a lie if you truly believe it", but we now have information showing that for the most part, the White House shouldn't have believed the intelligence they push. This letter to the editor to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer outlines just some of the most egregious examples of the Administration willfully lying to the public. Yes, they knew that Saddam was unlikely to have nuclear weapons, and stated that he likely did. To quote the author, "If that isn't lying, I don't know what is."

Blogger Commentary

Rahm, Please Tell Us: How Many More Have to Die for It to Be "The Right Time?". David Sirota nails it with his righteous indignation, and for once, it's toward Democrats. After Jack Murtha called for an Iraq pullout, Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) said that the Democrats would have a position on Iraq "at the right time". Who's Rahm Emanuel? Well, only the leader of the House Democrats' election campaign. This might be prudent politics, although it's also typical of what many (including us) dislike about Democrats: Their unwillingness to take a stand, even if it's unpopular. But forget politics for a second - it's morally reprehensible to play politics with this war. It's wrong for the Republicans to continue to do it, and it's wrong for the Democrats to do it at all. If a Democratic opposition to the war could end it and save lives in the long run, then it's the right thing to do. Have some integrity, Rahm!

It's Our Fault. Arthur Silber's back, and this time he's dispelling another myth that seems to circulate in the right-wing propaganda factory. Namely, the idea that if, but some strange twist of fate, we "lose" in Iraq and are forced to pull out before "victory" is achieved (whatever that means), then it won't be the fault of our leadership. No, they believe the blame will rest on "Main Street, U.S.A.", for engaging in "defeatism". Silber points out the absurdity of this argument: "We are the strongest nation in the history of the world. We have the most powerful military forces ever known to man. But if we 'lose,' it's the fault of those of us sitting at home who read and think about these events, and who dare to reach certain inescapable conclusions. It's our fault. We control nothing, and cannot dictate even the most miniscule part of the outcome." The right-wing is in charge. When they fail, it's their fault. It's called "accountability". Look into it for once.