The Blog

Joe Galloway: How Dare They Rip The Fourth Amendment?

2008-07-05T22:28:55Z

Early next week the U.S. Senate will vote on an extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with a few small amendments intended to immunize telecommunications corporations that assisted our government in the warrantless and illegal wiretapping it has grown to love.

That such a gutting of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution even made it out of committee is yet another stain on the gutless and seemingly powerless Democratic majority in both houses of Congress.

That a majority on both sides of the aisle -- not least of them the presumptive nominees for president of both political parties -- intend to vote for such a violation of Americans' right to privacy and of the sanctity of their personal communications is a stunning surrender to those who want us to live in fear forever.

We are living in a time when the right of habeas corpus -- which simply put is your right to be brought before a proper court of law where the government is made to prove that there is good and legal reason to detain you -- recently survived by a margin of only one vote at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now these bad actors are prepared to set aside your right to privacy -- written into the Constitution as a key part of our Bill of Rights -- with hardly a nod in the direction of the true patriots who rebelled against an English king and his army to guarantee those rights.

That they will do this while the last empty phrases of the political windbags at the Fourth of July celebrations are still echoing across a thousand city parks and the bright red, white and blue bunting and blizzard of American flags still flap in the breeze is little short of breath-taking.

How dare they?

Those denizens of the White House and Capitol Hill and all those gray granite buildings that line avenues with names like Constitution and Independence in the nation's capitol would have us believe that we must trade our rights, all of our rights, for some measure of security from the terrorists.

They would have us believe that a nation of 300 million people must surrender what a million other Americans gave their lives in war to protect in order to protect us from a couple of hundred fanatics hiding in caves in Waziristan.

Benjamin Franklin himself wrote of such a debate:

"Those who can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The fact that British troops, operating on flimsy general warrants handed out by local magistrates, were kicking in the doors of ordinary Americans and rifling through their pantries and papers in search of smuggled, untaxed goods was a prime reason why our ancestors rebelled against their king and went to war.

This is WHY we celebrate the Fourth of July. This is why the vote on renewing the expanded version of FISA and whitewashing the egregious violations of the Fourth Amendment for seven long years by our government is important.

If neither John McCain, the Republican, or Barrack Obama, the Democrat, can find the courage to oppose such a violation of so basic a right, then what are we to do for a president, a successor to George W. Bush, The Decider, who has since 9/11 decided what rights you are entitled to keep, what laws he will or will not obey, and whether you will be protected by these words of the Constitution:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That's it. That's the Fourth Amendment. That is what these folks in Washington, D.C., have violated continuously and in secret for seven long years.

Somewhere across an ocean and a desert, hiding in his cave, a man of hate named Osama bin Laden is laughing up the sleeve of his dirty robe at the thought that he and a small handful of fellow fanatics could tie a great nation in knots -- knots of fear stoked by our own leaders.

We have done incalculably more and greater damage to ourselves since September 11, 2001, than a thousand bin Ladens and ten thousand al Qaida recruits could ever have done to us.

Franklin D. Roosevelt famously declared that "we have nothing to fear but fear itself." Now it would seem that we have no one to fear but ourselves and our leaders.

The questions I pose are these:

How can even one senator on either side of the aisle in good conscience vote in favor of this law that does nothing to enhance our security and everything to diminish our rights as a free people?

How can both men who seek to become our next president cast such a vote when both should be standing shoulder-to-shoulder declaring that they would govern by our consent and with our approval, not by wielding the coercive and corrosive and corrupt powers that King George III and his latter-day namesake from Texas thought are theirs by divine right?

This post was originally published by McClatchy Newspapers

Arianna Huffington: Sunday Roundup

2008-07-05T18:01:24Z

This week FARC got Punk'd; More of the Same McCain got even more so by putting a Rove acolyte at the controls of his campaign; and Condi Rice showed how limited her imagination is, saying the Iraq war has been "tougher than any of us dreamed." Actually, Madame Secretary, many people were wide awake before the war and warned that it would be a nightmare. Of course, Rice has displayed her tragic lack of imagination before, claiming no one "could have predicted" terrorists flying airplanes into buildings before 9/11 despite the fact that, in the words of the 9/11 Commission, such a "possibility was imaginable, and imagined" by multiple government and law enforcement agencies. Perhaps upon her return to Stanford, she can enroll in some imagination expansion courses.

Bill Press: Note to Obama... Don't Go Soft on Iraq!

2008-07-05T17:31:03Z

On this site, Arianna Huffington was the first to warn Barack Obama that he would disappoint a lot of his enthusiastic supporters, and not necessarily gain any new ones, by moving too fast to the center. Apparently, he wasn't listening.

He started out safely enough: renouncing a pledge to take public financing. No big deal. He moved on to more serious matters: letting states decide when to apply the death penalty to child rapists and supporting an individual's right to own a handgun. Issues on which Democrats can honestly disagree. Then he reversed course on providing immunity to phone companies who joined George Bush's wiretapping blitz. Why? Especially when he publicly promised not to?

Still, those were not issues central to the campaign. Obama could shift positions on such secondary issues, most observers agreed, as long as he didn't waffle on the war. Uh-oh. Guess what? He just did.

Speaking to reporters upon arriving in Fargo, N.D., Obama said he was looking forward to meeting military commanders when he visits Baghdad later in the summer and, based on what he learned, might "refine his policies" on Iraq.

Oh, no. Say it isn't so. Obama didn't win the primaries by being fuzzy on Iraq. He generated so much excitement and support principally because he was out front, opposing the war in Iraq from the very beginning, while Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden and others were voting for it. More than any other issue, opposition to the war in Iraq defines Obama's candidacy. He can't go soft on Iraq.

To his credit, Obama quickly moved to clarify his statement. He repeated his determination to end the war and to start bringing homes immediately at the pace of what he hopes will be one or two brigades a month - by which schedule all American troops would be out of Iraq in 16 months. There was, Obama insisted, no change in his position.

And in fact, during the primaries, Obama repeatedly expressed the caution (perhaps lost on his supporters) that how quickly we could pull troops out of Iraq would depend on conditions on the ground. As he put it so artfully: "We have to be as careful getting out, as we were careless going in."

Still, the damage is already done. Perception, too often, is reality. To hear Obama say he's open to "refining" his policies on Iraq is enough to inject joy into the McCain campaign and fear into the heart of every Democrat.

The 2008 election will be won or lost on two issues: the economy and the war.

On the war, McCain and Obama have been polar opposites. Obama wants to end it, McCain wants to carry it on. Obama wants to start bringing troops home immediately, McCain says the earliest we could bring troops home is 2013. Obama wants all troops home by 2013, McCain doesn't mind if we stay in Iraq another 100 years.

The differences are clear and must remain that way. Iraq is a winning issue for Democrats. As long as Obama doesn't muddle toward the middle.

Hale "Bonddad" Stewart: It's Not "Liberal Media Bias"; It's the Economy, Stupid

2008-07-05T15:41:43Z

To those of us who started writing about economics on the web, Barry Rithotlz is like a blog Godfather. His blog the Big Picture was one of the first economics blogs I found and is one I still read regularly. He inspired many of us to start writing ourselves.

Thankfully, Barry is also a deeply irreverent voice challenging standard assumptions about practically everything. However, his arguments are not crouched in ignorance; they are in fact some of the best researched and documented columns in any medium. Several days ago he published an article titled Pervasive Pollyannas of Prosperity where he made the following points:

We have heard longstanding charges of liberal media bias, going all the way back to Spiro Agnew's Nattering Nabobs of Negativism (September 11, 1970). Whatever validity that Trojan horse might have ever had has now jumped the shark. Mass Media is owned by large corporate interests (Disney, Viacom, News Corp, Time Warner, etc.). If anything, the disconnect between reality and the "Pervasive Pollyannas of Prosperity" has rendered moot William Safire's catchphrase.

Indeed, the bias is precisely the other way -- between reality and ideological absurdity.

Its the Lite Beer marketing syndrome: If your product is pisswater, and fattening to boot, you never admit that in your advertising. Instead, you frame the debate as whether it "tastes great or is less filling." Its jiu jitsu marketing, turning your liability into an advantage. The misdirection is often effective.

How absurd has the Panglossian cheerleading become? On my pal Larry Kudlow's show last night, several of Candide's descendants talked about how great stocks are if you hold them for 30 years. That's right, the holding period for equities according to this crowd is three decades. Of course, this means every pullback is a buying opportunity. Words such as these can only be spoken by someone who has never worked on a trading desk or managed assets professionally -- or if they did, they lost most of their clients' money.

Rather than address why the public is so unhappy, the triple Ps toss charges of bias. Ignore the worst monthly Auto Sales since 1992, ignore the latest signs of consumer distress (Starbucks closing 500 stores). And when that stops working, PPP starts discussing the long run, ignoring the trading wisdom of Keynes. Its yet more evidence of the pollution of economics with partisan politics. Fortunately for most of the Pervasive Pollyannas of Prosperity, they don't have to live off their market calls. Those who invest based on their "Never say recession" worldview best have another source of income. Fortunately, most of the public isn't so easily misled.

This is something that has irritated me for some time -- the cheerleading at the expense of factual analysis. I live in Houston, Texas where all we have on the AM dial is right-wing radio. From 6 AM to midnight, we are saturated with the likes of Hannity, Rush, Gallagher and their ilk. To hear them talk, you'd think we're just going through a minor correction which the "liberal media" is blowing completely out of proportion (you can also read such garbage from the likes of Captain Ed, Red State and Newsbusters.) If we only continued to think happy thoughts and put a super-positive spin on everything all would be well.

This is a pure Orwellian fantasy of the highest order. The underlying facts of the current economy are terrible; as I will outline below we've got serious problems that can't be spun away with "happy thoughts". But that doesn't stop the right-wing idiots from continuing to push their "liberal media is talking down a great economy" line of attack. So, the next time you hear a talking head say, "all we need is happier reporting" respond with observations of facts presented below and see what they say.

I'm going to base this analysis on a document from the most liberal group ever imagined. This group is so liberal they make the phrase "liberal Democrat" look like a member of the John Birch Society. This group is often the target of right wing attacks because of their liberal nature. In fact, this group is politically to the left of th ACLU and anybody who attended the Woodstock summer of love festival. So -- who is this group? the Federal Reserve. About every month and a half, they release a document called the Beige Book. This book is filled with Democratic party talking points. There is not one right wing point to balance out the hardened ~~leftist~~ communist, defeatist rhetoric contained therein. It is a disgusting document that is filled with anti-American bile. Here is the main hateful paragraph of their latest release.

Reports from the Federal Reserve Districts suggest that economic activity remained generally weak in late April and May. Three Districts described economic activity as softer, weaker, or lower, with an additional four Districts reporting slower, sluggish, or modest economic growth. The remaining five Districts of Philadelphia, Cleveland, Atlanta, St. Louis, and San Francisco described activity as stable or little changed in recent weeks.

Consumer spending slowed since the last report as incomes were pinched by rising energy and food prices. Higher energy prices also appeared to damp domestic tourism. Reports on nonfinancial services varied across Districts and industries. Manufacturing activity was generally soft in recent weeks, with weak demand for housing-related and some other products but with increasing demand for exports. Residential real estate markets remained weak across most Districts. Commercial real estate conditions varied across Districts, as did reports on nonresidential construction activity. Lending activity also varied across Districts and market segments, though tighter credit standards were reported for most loan categories. Districts reporting on the agriculture and energy sectors noted improved crop conditions and increased drilling and extraction activity.

Reports of higher input costs were widespread. Manufacturing contacts in several Districts noted some ability to pass along higher costs to customers. Retailers reported mixed results with respect to raising final goods prices. In most Districts, wage pressures were reported as moderate or limited for all but a few skilled-labor positions, as hiring activity remained spotty in most Districts.

Clear, this group of people hate America.

I'm going to turn off the sarcasm and return to bland econ mode now. Let's take a look at what the Federal Reserve is talking about.

Consumer spending slowed since the last report as incomes were pinched by rising energy and food prices. Higher energy prices also appeared to damp domestic tourism.

Reports of higher input costs were widespread. Manufacturing contacts in several Districts noted some ability to pass along higher costs to customers. Retailers reported mixed results with respect to raising final goods prices.

Oil is a big problem right now. My wife and I had a party last night and oil/gas prices were a big topic of conversation. The general consensus was if gas prices remain at current levels we're going to see profound changes in US behavior. Here is a long-term chart of oil prices:

Prices have increased from $40/bbl at the beginning of 2004 to to over $140/bbl today. That's a 250% increase of the basic commodity that powers most of out transportation. That's a profound increase that is bound to slip into every single nook and cranny of the economy in one way or the other. In short -- this is a big issue, that is not going away any time soon.

Consumer spending slowed since the last report as incomes were pinched by rising energy and food prices.

"Bonddad -- look at that increase! Things are turning around!" Sure they are. And how often will the federal government be able to mail out stimulus checks to keep people spending? Take a look at personal income:

We had one of the biggest bumps in the last 20 years thanks to the federal government doling out money. What do you think is going to happen in the next few months after those checks stop coming out from Washington? Considering year over year employment growth has been dropping for several years:

And the unemployment rate is increasing (wasn't this number suppose to magically come down because of the increase in teen unemployment in the last number, Captain Ed?):

I wouldn't be expecting a wage increase anytime soon.

Reports on nonfinancial services varied across Districts and industries.

The ISM non-manufacturing index has been creeping downward for the last 3 years. It is currently below 50 indicating a contraction and has been reading at that level for 4 of the last 6 months. This indicates that things in the non-manufacturing sector are not going well.

Manufacturing activity was generally soft in recent weeks, with weak demand for housing-related and some other products but with increasing demand for exports.

The year-over-year industrial production number has been decreasing for the last 6 months,

Capacity utilization has been decreasing,

And the Empire (NY Fed) and Philly Fed indexes have been in poor shape for the last 5 months. The only good news is:

The ISM manufacturing indexes recent read about 50. But considering where this number has been over the last 5 months, we'll need at least one more month of positive news before we can say things are good -- and then only if we get confirmation from one of the other numbers listed above. The overwhelming news from manufacturing is negative right now -- at least according to these really stubborn things called facts and statistics.

Residential real estate markets remained weak across most Districts

Here's the short lesson in the US' current real estate market.

Existing home inventory is at a mammoth level in both real terms

And month's of available supply.

As a result,

Home prices in 20 U.S. metropolitan areas fell in April by the most on record, signaling the housing recession is far from over, a private survey showed today.

The S&P/Case-Shiller home-price index dropped 15.3 percent from a year earlier, less than forecast, after a 14.3 percent decline in March. The group began keeping year-over-year records in 2001. A separate report showed consumer confidence slumped this month to the lowest level in 16 years.

Mortgage defaults and foreclosures are adding to the glut of properties on the market, while stricter loan rules are making it more difficult for prospective buyers to get financing. The prolonged real-estate slump, along with higher fuel prices and a shrinking job market, is taking a toll on consumers and the economy.

Commercial real estate conditions varied across Districts, as did reports on nonresidential construction activity. Lending activity also varied across Districts and market segments, though tighter credit standards were reported for most loan categories.

Banking is doing so well that:

Securities firms and banks have reported more than $400 billion of writedowns and credit losses, and raised about $322 billion to replenish reserves since the start of last year, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Anshu Jain, head of global markets at Deutsche Bank AG, said this week that the contagion sparked by the U.S. subprime mortgage collapse has erased more than a fifth of the banking industry's value and is ``by no means over.''

And another bastion of liberal media bias, a group that hates America and in unpatriotic has said the following about the US banking system:

# INDUSTRY EARNINGS DECLINE 46 PERCENT FROM YEAR-EARLIER LEVEL
# LOSS PROVISIONS ABSORB A HIGHER SHARE OF REVENUE
# TROUBLED LOANS ACCUMULATE IN REAL ESTATE PORTFOLIOS
# LENDING GROWTH SLOWS
# FOURTH QUARTER 2007 EARNINGS ARE REVISED BELOW $1 BILLION

.....

Deteriorating asset quality concentrated in real estate loan portfolios continued to take a toll on the earnings performance of many insured institutions in first quarter 2008. Higher loss provisions were the primary reason that industry earnings for the quarter totaled only $19.3 billion, compared to $35.6 billion a year earlier. FDIC-insured commercial banks and savings institutions set aside $37.1 billion in loan-loss provisions during the quarter, more than four times the $9.2 billion set aside in first quarter 2007. Provisions absorbed 24 percent of the industry's net operating revenue (net interest income plus total noninterest income) in the quarter, compared to only 6 percent in the first quarter of 2007. The average return on assets (ROA) was 0.59 percent, falling from 1.20 percent in first quarter 2007. The first quarter's ROA is the second-lowest since fourth quarter 1991. The downward trend in profitability was relatively broad: slightly more than half of all insured institutions (50.4 percent) reported year-over-year declines in quarterly earnings. However, the brunt of the earnings decline was borne by larger institutions. Almost two out of every three institutions with more than $10 billion in assets (62.4 percent) reported lower net income in the first quarter, and four large institutions accounted for more than half of the $16.3-billion decline in industry net income.

That liberal, America hating institution is the FDIC from their latest Quarterly banking Profile

So, to Larry Kudlow, Captain Ed, Newsbusters, Donald Luskin and anyone else who is telling us the economy is just fine and dandy, please provide facts to refute everything mentioned above. Please provide facts that demonstrate:

1.) The consumer is in great shape

2.) Manufacturing is going gangbusters,

3.) Real Estate is just about to bottom,

4.) The financial sector is about to turn around

When you can write a fact based paper that demonstrates the above mentioned points, please do so. However, you opinion that the liberal media is talking down a great economy is, well, garbage. I am calling it such and am awaiting your fact-based response to the points made by the Federal Reserve and the FDIC.

Andy Ostroy: The Wesley Clark "Scandal:" Democrats Get Sucked Into the Same Old Republican Trap

2008-07-05T14:38:17Z

General Wesley Clark created a tempest in a teapot during an appearance last Sunday on CBS's Face the Nation. Here's what the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe told host Bob Schieffer about the GOP's presumptive nominee, Sen. John McCain, when discussing his military record as relating to his quest for the presidency:

..."in the matters of national security policy-making, it's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions.....He hasn't made the calls......I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."

Now here's what a key McCain surrogate, retired Col. George "Bud" Day, told reporters afterwards:

"This backhanded slap against John as not being a worthy warrior because he just got shot down is one of the more surprising insults in my military history."

But just exactly where is this major diss that Day is so sanctimoniously condemning? Where exactly is the part about McCain not being a "worthy warrior?" Don't waste your time looking, because it's not there. It's simply another "If you're against the war you're against the troops" framing job from the "do as I say, not as I do" crowd. We should remind Day of his own appearances in the morally-repugnant 2004 Swift Boat ads that attacked the military record of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry. "My view is he basically will go down in history sometime as the Benedict Arnold of 1971," the good patriotic colonel said of Kerry at the time.

In the wake of Clark's comments, Democrats immediately fell back into familiar patterns of subjugation and appeasement. The party's presumptive nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, was quick to throw Clark under the bus:

"I'm happy to have all sorts of conversations about how we deal with Iraq and what happens with Iran but the fact that somebody on a cable show or on a news show like General Clark said something that was inartful about Sen. McCain I don't think is probably the thing that is keeping Ohioans up at night," he said in Zanesville. He then went on, as he's done so many times lately, to lavish such effusive praise on McCain and his military record that he could be on the Arizona Senator's payroll.

It's one thing when Republicans twist and distort the truth, but when Democrats do it to themselves, as Obama did this week, it's a mystery that's only explained by the party's gargantuan inability (unless your name is Clinton) to successfully fight back against the right-wing attack machine. Here's what Obama should've said in defense of Clark:

"I stand behind Gen. Wesley Clark and agree that while my opponent's military record is indeed honorable and courageous, it does not in and of itself qualify him to be president of the United States or commander-in-chief. The right-wing's attempt to distort the General's very clear point is just another example of the Republican Party's desperate need, at any cost, to distract Americans from the harsh truths about the war, the economy and the fact that voters overwhelmingly are signaling they they want change in Washington come November."

Instead, Obama gave us another incredibly frustrating "I voted for the war before I voted against it" gaffe. He gave us his version of Kerry's embarrassing inability to fight the Swift Boat attacks. In what could've been a very seminal moment, Obama donned the familiar wuss-suit and once again demonstrated that Democrats just can't play rough.

You can bet your ass that if the situation were reversed, and it was Obama being attacked by the McCain camp, not only would McCain fail to publicly rebuke his surrogate, but he'd likely pile on for some cheap shots of his own. Why then do Democrats always have to take the higher ground? Why on Earth would Obama feel so compelled to condemn a loyal surrogate like Clark for something he didn't even say? It was as if he wanted so badly to appease McCain and his supporters that he forgot he's in the midst of a firce battle for the presidency. And it was one of those awfully frustrating Kumbaya moments that Democrats are unfortunately famous for. Moments that can ultimately kill an election.

In the past couple of weeks Obama has reversed course on a number of key issues in a centrist ploy to out-McCain McCain. Be careful, Barack, that and a few more episodes in the wuss-suit and you'll be waking up empty-handed November 5th.

Julia Moulden: Does The White Queen Rule?

2008-07-05T12:51:10Z

"The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday - but never jam to-day."

"It MUST come sometimes to 'jam to-day,'" Alice objected.

"No, it can't," said the Queen. "It's jam every OTHER day: to-day isn't any OTHER day, you know."

If the wonderfully wacky world of Lewis Carroll's White Queen held sway, we would never have to make up our minds about what we want to do with the rest of our lives. It would never actually be "to-day."

Does that sound tempting? For New Radicals-in-the-making, it can be. (New Radicals are people who've discovered how to put skills acquired in their careers to work on some of the world's greatest challenges; for more, see archived posts.) We've spent time imagining a new and deeply meaningful career for ourselves. One that will make a real difference. It's been thrilling to wander around with our heads full of possibilities, delicious when all the doors are still wide open.

At the same time, this stage can be distressing. With so many choices before us and so much uncertainty, some people report feeling anxious and lost. "What will I do? What will I do?" Many of my clients talk about how the stakes are much higher at midlife -- they feel that this is their last chance, or they're reluctant to let go of what's familiar (no matter how unhappy they've been). And pretty much everyone talks about a fear of failure.

Happily, "to-day" does eventually arrive. People do make decisions. They put one foot in front of the other and move forward. But how?

For the lucky few, a New Radical role suddenly appears. Someone reaches out and offers them something that fits like a glove. Ayisi Makitiani is a case in point. Born in Kenya, he was educated at the best U.S. schools, and returned to Africa to help launch the continent's first Internet service provider. While raising funds to start a private equity firm, he caught the eye of one of his potential investors -- the International Finance Corporation, the World Bank's private-sector arm. They persuaded him to help run the African Management Services Company, charged with helping African firms become competitive in the global marketplace. It was an unexpected but welcome shift. "Suddenly I'm a man with a mission. All my friends thought I'd gone mad!"

Others find clarity one of three ways:

1. A natural next step
2. A flash of inspiration
3. A breakthrough

As they move through the research process I outlined in earlier columns, some New Radicals discover that their new role comes quickly into view. The most organic evolution is to become an Activist -- that is, to do similar work in a new sector. For instance, thousands of men and women have migrated between the corporate and nonprofit worlds. And our timing couldn't be better, given a growing labour shortage in the charitable sector. Did you know that more than half a million nonprofit leaders are poised to retire in the next 10 years? That's the finding of the Bridgestar organization -- and you can read all about it a report that's available on their site, "The Nonprofit Sector's Leadership Deficit." [bridgestar.org]

Sometimes, New Radicals get a bolt out of the blue that makes the next step crystal clear. Nicole Pageau, for instance, heard one of the survivors of the Rwandan genocide speak and knew immediately that she wanted to help. At 62, she started a one-woman NGO, quit her job, sold everything she owned, and moved to Africa. She now helps women in a village outside the capital city run small businesses. [ubuntuedmonton.org]

Liz and Stephen Alderman got two jolts. The first made them realize that life would never again be the same: they lost their youngest son, Peter, on 9/11. Very soon after, they knew that they wanted to do something to honor Peter's life. They considered and rejected a number of options, because nothing really captured their hearts. And then, sitting quietly one night, they turned on the television to watch Nightline and saw a story that would change the direction of their lives for the second time. It was about the estimated one billion people worldwide who survive mass violence, but who are no longer able to function because of their trauma. The Aldermans knew they could do nothing for their son, but they could help survivors get on with their lives. And they've started an organization that provides indigenous caregivers with the tools to treat mental anguish -- using Western medical therapies combined with local healing traditions. I think of them as a kind of Doctors Without Borders for the psyche. [petercaldermanfoundation.org]

Perhaps the most gratifying moment comes when New Radicals realize that everything they've done so far in their lives has prepared them to step into a new role. Scott Johnson, who founded the Myelin Repair Foundation (and helped create a revolutionary model for disease research) described it this way, "My first career had four pillars that would help in my second. My initial training as an engineer, which is about problem solving and being very logical. My background in strategic consulting, which is concerned with how big companies should face the future and what they need to do differently. My experience inside a large corporation, which would be useful because the Myelin Repair Foundation would interface with biotech companies and understanding their culture and how they work would be important. And, finally, my start-up experience, which meant I was comfortable starting something new." [myelinrepair.org]

Sometimes, emerging New Radicals need more time to choose their new role. It can take a considerable amount of research and thought -- a thorough exploration of the marketplace and a weighing of options -- before they're ready to take this all-important step.

Plus, they may not be ready in another sense. They may need to prepare for their new role -- it can be very different, after all. They may need to get volunteer experience. They may need to go back to school. Or they may simply need to learn about a new culture -- as happens when a construction company CFO becomes vice president of finance for a hospital.

Over the next few weeks, I'll write about the kinds of things that New Radical pioneers grappled with as they reinvented their work. In particular, given the comments on last week's column -- and because it's a question I always get asked when giving a speech or being interviewed -- I'll address the money issue.

But know this now: you do not have to be a White Queen -- or a billionaire or celebrity -- to become a New Radical. This is a movement for all.

Harry Shearer: Bobby Jindal, the Ball is In Your Courts

2008-07-05T09:36:07Z

NEW ORLEANS -- Aside from his recent 180 on the recent legislative pay raise bill (which spawned recall petitions against, among others, him), Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's honeymoon period has been most severely damaged by his support of a bill allowing "scientific criticism" of evolution to be taught in public schools. (The quote is not from the bill itself, but from a supporter, a "senior fellow" at the pro-intelligent design Discovery Institute.) Jindal had openly supported the teaching of intelligent design during his gubernatorial campaign, in what was widely interpreted as an appeal to northern Louisiana's conservative Republicans.

So now comes a judicial opinion in the case of Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District, a decision by an appointee of George W. Bush, that rules a local school district's attempt to allow the teaching of intelligent design is unconstitutional. You might expect liberal websites to applaud the decision, but take a look at the reaction from conservative blog Little Green Footballs:

The resulting decision was an utter defeat for the intelligent design shills; star witness Michael Behe was forced to admit under cross examination that there are no peer-reviewed articles by ID advocates, and that the definition of "scientific theory" he was attempting to promote was so vague it could also be applied to astrology. (Despite this crushing blow, the ID movement refuses to go quietly into that dark night.)

The judge in the case, John E. Jones III, a Republican appointed by George W. Bush, ruled that the school district's decision was unconstitutional, and issued a 139 page decision (available here) that's remarkable for the conclusions it reaches about the origins and nature of the "intelligent design" movement, and very harsh in its criticism of the groups and individuals who promote it.

LGF includes copious quotes from the judge's decision, which are well worth reading. Has Governor Jindal ejected himself from the Veep Rocket whose trajectory seemed so impressive just two weeks ago? And has he guaranteed a court battle in Louisiana likely to echo Kitzmiller?

Sean-Paul Kelley: Municipal Wireless, The World and Obama

2008-07-05T08:11:32Z

The future doesn't happen in America now. I can confirm it. I'm sitting on a sidewalk browsing the internet via a free municipal wireless network. There was also an extensive free network in Istanbul. Denmark, Korea, New Zealand, Singapore and several other countries exceed America in wireless and internet availability on a per bandwidth per person basis. Other than, maybe San Francisco and the Bay Area, are there any places where one can sit and browse the net, communicate, send email and engage in all sorts of innovative pursuits for free? A guy sitting next to me is videoconferencing with a colleague in Malaysia right now. Another woman is doing something on a handheld wireless device. Some kids are playing video games and here I sit doing my thing. The service can be unreliable. And it's certainly not a good idea to download anything from iTunes. Not from a legal standpoint just from a bandwidth point of view.

Of course, it isn't free. Local taxes pay for it. But isn't that what taxes are for? To improve the quality of a nation's human capital? The standard of living here in Singapore is that of America, as I have mentioned elsewhere. But the infrastructure is better. America is falling behind because we're drowning in a solipsistic consumer culture, borrowing against the future to maintain an excessive and opulent standard of living without actually manufacturing anything of value. And believe me, Singaporeans love to shop, consume, the whole gamut. The whole city is a shopping mall. But they also save, much more as a percentage of wages than we do. They pay taxes and don't grumble about it. They have a top shelf military relative to the size of the city-state. Every able bodied young man (and frequently women) do national service of some sort. It isn't perfect, don't get me wrong. But it's better than pouring billions into two pointless wars when money should be spent on our crumbling schools, our collapsing bridges and our disastrous electricity grid.

These used to be American values. They used to be why the world looked up to us. But the people here in Singapore don't understand. They ask me, even now, why American's have gone so crazy, lost the center, changed so drastically. They like us here. I am treated very, very well. Better than in almost any country I've traveled in. But they're losing patience with us. Will electing Obama change our image? Having an African-American president will help, I've heard that a lot. And I don't deny the attractiveness of the idea from a purely geopolitical point of view, a way of regaining some of the high ground and mystique of "America" squandered these last few years. It's a palpable feeling here and in other places. But there is much, much more work to be done than just one election. This isn't an encomium for Obama, no hagiography here. But, there is a real hope outside of America on this issue--and a hope like that is not to be denied, or discounted.

Pius Kamau: An Immigrant's July 4th

2008-07-05T07:28:20Z

Even though I immigrated to America three decades ago, when most Americans look at me and hear my accent they can't believe I could be a patriotic American. That I have been quite critical of much that America has done including the war in Iraq; racism in our healthcare system; and racism, with its million manifestations, in America's daily life have angered many who know of me. But beneath the critique of my adopted home, many would be surprised to learn I love America unreservedly and consider myself patriotic. These thoughts come to me on a day when giant flags wave in the wind near my home; when many swirl beer, eat hot dogs waiting for the fireworks. And for many patriotism is reduced to flags, fireworks and FOX News -- that seems to have cornered the patriotism market.

Socrates believed and taught that patriotism required we promote dissenting ideas. His reward was to be dragged through a trial and eventual suicide. Socratic debates cannot be performed on CNN or on the O'Reilly show on Fox. TV Discussions are simplified to wearing flag lapel pins; and placing hands on hearts as the national anthem is sang. That the American media spend so little time debunking some of the nonsensical stereotypes and statements of what it means to be a patriot is a travesty. Were the media to take up the job of educating America they would be true patriots.

I'm puzzled by the shouting matches about patriotism on Fox News; the public spectacles about who is more patriotic -- John McCain or Obama. Are Democrats more patriotic than Republicans? How can some Church pretend to be more patriotic than others? The truth is, to me, these claims describe what it means to be unpatriotic

Patriotism, I believe is like virtue, or wisdom. We can become more virtuous and wiser. As time has passed and I have learned to love America more, I too have become more patriotic. I want a better America for my children and their children and my friends' children. I would like my generation to leave a more whole America for them, for I believe that a healthy America is good for the world community. I have a clearer vision of the world than most Americans and realize what a gift the American system is - if it could be preserved intact. I would like to see the American century prolonged; knowing what I know about China and Africa, I fear the ascendancy of the Chinese.

Because of their gratitude for what the country has done for them and their deeper and clearer understanding of this great country, many immigrants to America are truer patriots compared to many American-born citizens who wear their patriotism on their sleeves. To them patriotism is no more than a spoken language, a simple tune that demands little thought; compared to the immigrant's detailed thinking, resulting in a deeper conviction about the country.

There is much that bothers me about America's behavior and often wonder if what some folks do can be described as patriotic. Or not. In some instances, patriotism is like light and darkness; you define one by the lack of the other. I know that any behavior that precludes the survival of the human species is unpatriotic.

I know too that those segments of our society that try to delegitimize others are unpatriotic. How for instance could the KKK have been regarded as more patriotic than black WW II veterans? How can anyone pretend that gay Americans are less patriotic than heterosexuals? But they do.

I am particularly mystified by those who dismantle companies, factories and export jobs overseas. Is that patriotic? I believe that Ken Lay and the other founders of ENRON, folks who knowingly destroyed employees' and investors' lives were unpatriotic. Greedy unscrupulous subprime mortgage lenders and bankers mismanaged the Real Estate market for years. still they show their patriotic colors by waving their American flags.

Politicians and business leaders whose personal ambition and interest supersede the welfare of the people and the nation are unpatriotic. CEOs who earn 400 times what their employees earn are unjust. I have doubts about their patriotism. If the desire is to profit, disregarding the security and well-being of the nation and its people, then it is unpatriotic.

For thirty years, American car manufacturers cajoled and threatened our politicians not to change CAFÉ standards. They refused to build more fuel efficient cars as Japan diligently researched and developed tomorrow's cars. The result is Detroit is dying; many across America are losing their livelihoods. To this foreigner's thinking, Detroit's behavior, concerned more with profits and less about America's future, sounds less patriotic.

What Americans need are fewer words; less shouting and more thoughtful dialogue between the citizenry. Many immigrants believe America needs to be more grown up about such things as patriotism and citizenship. This is an age of great problems, great global conflicts. The last thing we should be doing is worrying about who is more or less patriotic. That at any rate is an immigrant's point of view.

Bob Ostertag: Obama Tries and Fails to Put Out the FISA Fire in His Own House

2008-07-05T06:27:19Z

In an unprecedented attempt to put out a fire in his own house, Senator Barack Obama yesterday issued a response to supporters who had been protesting his position on government surveillance. The release was followed by an 90 minute interchange on MyBarackObama.com between campaign officials and supporters (though as far as I could tell, the campaign officials made no comments themselves but just read the comments being made, leaving it unclear who was actually reading and for how long)..

Unfortunately, there was nothing in Obama's response that addressed the harsh criticism some of his supporters have voiced. I could go into detail on why the statement stinks, but since this is the Internet I don't have to, since I can instead direct you to the excellent point-by-point analysis offered by Glenn Greenwald. My focus here will be the novel political dynamic unleashed by the Obama campaign's social networking site, MyBarackObama.com.

These are uncharted waters we are dealing with here. Yesterday I asked the question whether 18,000 people protesting on the campaign's own web site (out of hundreds of thousands) were a lot or a little. Apparently they were enough to get the attention of the campaign and the candidate.

The comments were a mix of people who were star-struck that Obama had noticed them and written a reply, people who felt any criticism on the site was inappropriate, people who just spouted typical Internet invective at each other, but then an awful lot of extremely informed and thoughtful people who did not back down an inch.

Some defending Obama's position questioned whether the protestors were really from the Obama camp or were Republicans who had logged on to wreak havoc. However, since MyBarackObama.com is a full-fledged social networking site, one can check the profile of each commenter, see how long they have been active on the site, what action groups they are part of, and so on. It appeared that many angry critics were people who had put a lot of time and money into the campaign.

The whole episode raised more questions than it answered. Certainly what is going on here is something new. There are going to be many more controversial issues. A presidential candidate can't always be having to log on to the Internet to defend himself from his own supporters. I am reminded The Obama campaign promised to give its supporters new Internet tools to empower them to make the campaign their own. Now that it as done so, the leadership has to be wondering if it was a good idea. of the musicians who have figured out how to make modest livelihoods marketing their music directly to fans over MySpace, only to discover that doing requires spending hours every day maintaining the sort of direct relationship fans on social networking sites expect.

On the other hand, overall this has to be considered a victory for, and an extension of, democracy. This is a clear-cut case of a candidate promising one thing and doing another. Turns out that in the age of the online campaign there will be a higher price for this time-honored activity.

The folks at Obama HQ better tighten their saddle. They have let the horse out of the barn, and it might be a bumpy ride.

* Some sample comments:

Frankly, I'm disappointed. No, Senator Barack, it's not a "deal breaker". But even using these words is almost like taunting your position in our face. Almost like you are taking our votes for granted because you know we have not choice but to vote for you. No, I don't want McCain, but I can say with clarity that my personal enthusiasm, and many of others who I talk to, have certainly diminished by a huge margin.

At the end of the day, the question is, do you want your supporters to vote for you because you are the lesser of the two evils, because they have "no choice" when comparing the alternative (as you say yourself) or do you want people to vote for you because they are proud of what you stand for?

- Christine

Christine, I, too, did not like that "deal breaker" line. I felt like it was dismissive, especially when he has been trying soo hard to get the gun advocates, the evangelicals, the death penalty advocates...It's like, ok, get lost. I got plenty more voters and money!! What has happened to him???

- JonnieRae

Huff TV: Arianna On CNN: Discusses Secretary Rice's "Proud" Comment

2008-07-05T02:49:43Z

On the Fourth Of July Arianna appeared on CNN's Situation Room to discuss Secretary Rice's comment on being "proud" of invading Iraq.

Watch:

CNN

Watch Part 2:

CNN

Lizz Winstead: Jezebelism

2008-07-05T00:55:22Z

Tracie Egan, and Moe Tkacik, two writers from Jezebel.com were invited to appear on my show, Thinking and Drinking.

Their work on Jezebel has made them role models for young women everywhere. After reading their posts to prepare for the interview, I wanted to have a conversation about Hillary and sexism, women's magazines and if they feel any obligation to write about responsibility and safety when they write graphically about their sex lives.

We conducted a pre-interview with Tracie who writes about sex and pop culture for Jezebel under the name "Slut Machine." When you click on "Slut Machine" you are linked to her personal blog that regales her readers with "no detail left behind" accounts of her sexual experiences.

Moe writes about politics and sex as well and combines pop culture with it all and was not available for a pre-interview. Tracie assured us she would be cool with anything we talked about in the feminist, political arena, that she was an expert on China, and that they had been talking a lot about rape lately.

They were emailed a show description with links to past interviews and we were all set.

I don't know if they came to the show drunk, or just ended up drunk by the time they hit the stage, but what I do know is that the discussion that ensued was deeply disturbing to me for a few reasons:

1. Because they had no regard for the people who came that night and paid money to hear them speak.

2. They do not understand the influence they have over the women who read them, nor do they accept any responsibility as role models for young women who are coming of age searching for lifestyles to emulate.

Even as one young woman who attended the show voiced her disappointment on her own blog, when Moe and Tracie commented on the entry, she was so excited that she backpedaled her criticism.

I put this video up to start a discussion, about sexuality, feminism, freedom, power and responsibility. I want those who read and admire their work to ask themselves how they feel about this, and those who are just hearing about them for the first time to do the same. I am no angel and tell a few stories on this tape about my own life that are cringe worthy and so I put myself up for scrutiny here as well.

Words and actions matter, and those of us who are given a forum to share opinion should always be mindful of that, and those of us who are trying to be watchdogs for the truth, should always call out harmful inaccuracies when we see them. I feel a responsibility to hold these young women accountable for the statements they make as they seem sure to keep repeating them.

These are some selected clips. The entire interview is posted on www.shootthemessengernyc.com.

CLIP ONE:

These Jezebels recommend birth control methods:

Moe: Pulling out always works for me"

Tracie: "And I know it's an irresponsible thing to day, but it's (Pulling Out) The Most Fun Way Not To Get Pregnant"

The Jezebels on sex with total strangers:

Tracie: "People are always saying it's not safe to go home with strange men, blah, blah blah, like Mr. Goodbar whatever"

Moe: "What's gonna happen?'

Lizz You could get raped"

Moe: That's happening too, but you live through that."

Lizz: "Sometimes you don't"

Moe: "That's true if they have weapons."

The Jezebels define the "rapists of our generation"

Tracie: "I live in Williamsburg, there aren't very assertive men there"

Moe: "The thing about the rapists of our generation, is that they all use drugs, they all have some sort of drug they use on you, so it's good to feel, and I don't know if this has happed to me or if I just drink too much...

Moe: "It's really hard to prosecute them (rapists), so you should try to avoid them at all costs."

Tracie: "I once paid someone to rape me once."

Tracie: "Well, I didn't pay for it, I had a magazine pay for it

Tracie: "I moved here when I was 18 and you think you would encounter more rapists in a big city like this, but, I don't know, I just haven't."

CLIP TWO:

Moe on sexual regret:

Moe: "I guess, I like, regret being date raped"

Moe: "It seems like in terms of bad sexual experiences, that you have, the worst ones are in, always seem to be in countries where sex is not accepted. That is the good thing about New York, I've never has any problems with anyone here."

Moe: "I guess third guy, I ever had sex with, date raped me, and I got very mad at him, but I wasn't gonna fucking like turn him in to the police and fucking go through shit..

Lizz interrupts: "Why not, you see that's the problem, why not, I am just curious?"

Moe: Because it was a load of trouble and I had better things to do, like drinking more."

Tracie on why she has not been raped

" I think it has to do with the fact that I am like, smart"

"I don't hang around with frat guys"

Moe on how she felt about her rapist:

"I always felt very like, safe around this guy even after he date raped me"

Moe on what women can take home from reading their blogs

If any of you guys use the pullout method, but you read you know, anything I wrote about Ben Bernanke, or you know, what ever, at least y'll go to the grave with your syphilis, slightly informed, that's all I care about.

Lynda Resnick: A View of the World from the Aspen Ideas Festival

2008-07-04T22:52:21Z

For the last three summers the Aspen Institute has conducted an Ideas Festival in Aspen. About 70 speakers who discuss subjects ranging from Global Warming to Globalization, India and it's place in the world, Health and Obesity and World Famine, the current Political Landscape and Education in America appear at the conference.

Michael Sandel from Harvard, David Brooks and Tom Freidman from the NY Times, Sam Nunn, who many say will be the Vice Presidential candidate for Obama, Michael Chertoff, John Doerr, Vinod Khosla and President Clinton are among the many luminaries appearing this year.

It has become a tradition since the Festival's inception for my husband Stewart and me to host a dinner for the speakers at our home. Below you can find the contents of my welcome speech.

Welcome speech to the speakers of the Aspen Ideas Festival July 3rd, 2008

Stewart and I welcome you all to Little Lake Lodge for a dinner that has become something of a tradition; entertaining the inspired speakers presenting at the Aspen Institute Ideas Festival.

You'll notice the charming little topiary bears adorning your tables. The reason I chose a bear theme this year was to pay homage to the rather large brown bear who usually comes around to greet our guests when we throw this party. If he doesn't show up, at least you'll have your little bear honey jars -- they're your party favors, so don't forget to get them on the way out.

When I welcomed you last year, we were complaining that oil had hit $75 a barrel. Well, yesterday it hit $145. It's odd to have nostalgia for being overcharged instead of being hornswoggled.

In other news ... according to David Katz of the Yale School of Public Heath, diabetes will soon be as common to teenagers as acne. Perhaps cans of Coca-Cola will one day include an insulin patch.

John Holdren from Harvard cheered us up with news that climate change had reached a tipping point, and we might have a mere 10 years left to ward off the dire catastrophic consequences resulting from this man-made scourge.

Sadly, the war in the Middle East continues to drain our country of human and financial capital.
Paul Collier told us today about the world's food shortage and how it is affecting Africa and other nations.

David Brooks explained how the great divide between America's rich and poor has resulted in an intellectual divide that has reduced the likelihood of children from lower income families completing college to 1 in 17.

And the family you are born into is much more important than it was 40 years ago. But David, how can we control that? When you find out, please tell my children, as they have been complaining for years.

The elegant Craig Barrett, CEO of Intel, explained Moore's Law to us: it predicts the yearly doubling of the capacity of their microprocessors. Unfortunately, it seems that Moore's Law may also apply to America's woes.

As our two presumptive nominees vie for the White House, we wonder can a mere mortal really solve these problems?

Well, I have an idea: In China, when the air quality is too dangerous for the Olympic athletes in training, they simply shut down industry for three weeks. When their population is using too much gas, they just raise the price 17%. Population is a problem, they demand that families have only one child.

See where I'm going? Perhaps we don't need a president, we need a benevolent dictator.

But that won't work, because our country was built on the freedom of the individual. I learned that at Executive Seminar I first took at the Institute eight years ago.

So how do we solve our problems? We attend these brilliant festivals of ideas here in Aspen and we return to our homes charged with a new spirit of change.

As Vinod Khalsa said yesterday; "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste."

Emily Lazar the producer of the Stephen Colbert Show told us Stephen sees himself as "barium of the political colon" then I say, the Aspen Institute is the penicillin of society's strep throat.

Thank you Walter, Elliot, Kitty Boone and the rest of the Aspen Institute staff for creating a forum for us to discuss the problems we face, and for giving us the inspiration and ammunition to get help create solutions.

Ladies and gentlemen, have a wonderful evening. Remember tomorrow what Tom Friedman told us tonight: that our country's birthday is July 4th, not 9/11.

Enjoy your dinner -- and if I may paraphrase my dear friend Alice Waters, "nothing helps solve the ills of the world like a full stomach." Eat hearty, everyone!

Tom Hayden: Obama's Position on Iraq Could Put His Candidacy at Risk

2008-07-04T22:18:12Z

Call him slippery or nuanced, Barack Obama's core position on Iraq has always been more ambiguous than audacious. Now it is catching up with him as his latest remarks are questioned by the Republicans, the mainstream media, and the antiwar movement. He could put his candidacy at risk if his audacity continues to shrivel.

I first endorsed Obama because of the nature of the movement supporting him, not his particular stands on issues. The excitement among African-Americans and young people, the audacity of their hope, still holds the promise of a new era of social activism. The force of their rising expectations, I believe, could pressure a President Obama in a progressive direction and also energize a new wave of social movements.

And of course, there is the need to end the Republican reign that began with a stolen election followed by eight years of war and torture, corporate gouging, environmental decay, domestic spying and right-wing court appointments, just in case we forget who Obama is running against.

Besides the transforming nature of an African-American presidency, the issue that matters most to me is achieving a peaceful settlement of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and preventing American escalations in Iran and Latin America. From the beginning, Obama's symbolic 2002 position on Iraq has been very promising, reinforced again and again by his campaign pledge to "end the war" in 2009.

But that pledge also has been laced with loopholes all along, caveats that the mainstream media and his opponents [excepting Bill Richardson] have ignored or avoided until now. As I pointed out in Ending the War in Iraq [2007], Obama's 2002 speech opposed the coming war with Iraq as "dumb", while avoiding what position he would take once the war was underway. Then he wrote of almost changing his position from anti- to pro-war after a trip to Iraq. He never took as forthright a position as Senator Russ Feingold, among others. Then he adopted the safe, nonpartisan formula of the Baker-Hamilton Study Group, which advocated the withdrawal of combat troops while leaving thousands of American counter-terrorism units, advisers and trainers behind.

That would mean at least 50,000 Americans, including back up forces, engaged in counter-insurgency after the withdrawal of combat troops, a contradiction the media and Hillary Clinton failed to explore in the primary debates. To his credit, Obama said that these American units would not become caught up in a lengthy sectarian civil war, leaving the question of their role unanswered.

The most shocking aspect of Samantha Powers' forced resignation earlier this year was not that she called Hillary Clinton a "monster" off-camera, but that she flatly stated that Obama would review his whole position on Iraq once becoming president. Again, no one in the media or rival campaigns questioned whether this assertion by Powers was true. Since Obama credited Powers with helping for months in writing his book, The Audacity of Hope, her comments on his inner thinking should have been pounced upon by the pundits.

Finally, it has taken the pressure of the general election to raise questions about whether his parsed and lawyerly language is empty of credible meaning. Consider carefully his July 4 statements:

The first one, promising a "thorough reassessment" of his Iraq position later this summer:

"I've always said that the pace of our withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability" -- two conditions that could justify leaving American troops in combat indefinitely. "And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies" -- another loophole which could allow the war to drag on.

Then there came the later "clarification":

"Let me be as clear as I can be" [not, "let me be absolutely clear"].

"I intend to end this war." [intention only].

"My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war -- responsibly, deliberately, but decisively." [ Sounds positive, but "decisively" can mean by military threat in the worst case. And it's pure theatre, borrowed from Clinton, since the plans most likely will be drafted and finalized immediately after the November election.]

"And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one or two brigades a month..." [but what if the military commanders on the ground assert that it is too dangerous to pull out those troops?]

Obama's position, which always left a trail of unasked questions, now plants a seed of doubt, justifiably, among the peace bloc of American voters who harbor a legacy of betrayals beginning with Lyndon Johnson's 1064 pledge of "no wider war" through Richard Nixon's "secret plan for peace" to Ronald Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal and the deep complicity of Democrats in the evolution of the Iraq War.

It is difficult to understand Obama's motivation. Perhaps it is his lifetime success at straddling positions and disarming potential opponents. Perhaps it is a lawyer's training. Perhaps being surrounded by national security advisers who oppose what they call "precipitous withdrawal", and pragmatic Democrats distinctly uncomfortable with their antiwar roots.

What is clear is that Obama is responsive to pressures from the grass-roots base of a party that is overwhelmingly in favor of a shorter timetable for withdrawal than his, and favoring diplomatic rather than military solutions in Afghanistan and Pakistan. At a time that public interest in the war is receeding before economic concerns, it is time for the strongest possible reassertion of voter demands for peace.

The challenge for the peace and justice movement is to avoid falling into Republican divide-and-conquer traps while maintaining a powerful and independent presence in key electoral states, including Congressional battlegrounds, between now and November. There should be at the least:

- A demand that Obama talk to legitimate representatives of the peace movement, not simply hawkish national security advisers.

- A Democratic platform debate and plank that is unequivocal in pledging to end the war and avoid military escalation elsewhere.

- An energized antiwar voter education campaign that builds towards a clear November peace mandate to end the military occupation and shifr to political and diplomatic approraches.

- An organizational strategy to widen the base of the antiwar movement through the presidential campaign in preparation for a massive peace mobilization in early 2009.

Grass-roots people power is the only force that can keep alive the astute sense of pragmatism that led Obama to criticize the coming war in 2002. The stakes are higher now, and the enemies far more shrewd, wishing to rip asunder the Obama coalition. The peace movement assumption should be that there is no one in Obama's inner circle of advisers to be counted on, no mainstream columnist to catch his eye with a persuasive column favoring withdrawal. They never have. Only the voice of the peace voters - and the countless activists who have volunteered on his behalf - can command his attention now.

For more developments and analysis, see 'Progressives for Obama' at progressivesforobama.blogspot.com

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Brendan DeMelle: Unearthed: News of the Week the Mainstream Media Forgot to Report

2008-07-04T22:14:39Z

Supreme Court Slashes Exxon Valdez Judgment

The Supreme Court slashed a $2.5 billion punitive damages award for the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster to just $500 million. An Alaskan jury originally awarded $5 billion in 1994 in punitive damages for the fishermen, Native Americans and residents of Prince William Sound whose lives were devastated by the 11 million gallon oil spill which spoiled 1,200 miles of Alaskan coastline. Exxon Mobil waged a protracted, 14-year legal battle to appeal that award; in 2006 a federal appeals court cut the amount in half to $2.5 billion. Exxon appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to completely reject punitive damages because the company claims it spent $3.4 billion in fines, penalties and cleanup costs related to the accident.

In the court's 5-3 decision (Justice Samuel Alito was recused since he owns over $100,000 in Exxon stock) Justice David Souter wrote that the Exxon Valdez spill was "profitless" for the company and that the penalty should be "reasonably predictable" in its severity.

Of the 33,000 plaintiffs who were originally eligible to share in the jury award handed down in 1994, 20 percent have died over the course of Exxon's 14-year appeal.
Surviving plaintiffs will collect an average of about $15,000 a person in punitive damages, one-tenth what they were awarded under the original $5 billion judgment.

Oil still oozes from the beaches in Prince William Sound, continuing to impact the ecosystem which was devastated by the spill that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of seabirds and marine animals. Exxon Mobil's first-quarter 2008 profits were $10.9 billion. The company's 2007 profit was $40.6 billion.

White House Blocks EPA Draft On Global Warming Emissions

The White House is working to block the Environmental Protection Agency from publishing a document which outlines how the government could regulate global warming emissions under the Clean Air Act while benefiting the economy. The document is based on a multi-year, multimillion-dollar study by EPA and its findings could ultimately serve as a legal roadmap for regulating U.S. global warming emissions.

That is, until it faced review by the White House's Office of Management and Budget. Bush's OMB is demanding that EPA delete sections of the document that outline how greenhouse gas emissions could be regulated, delete any references asserting that emissions endanger public welfare, and delete an analysis of the benefits to the economy of regulating greenhouse gases here and abroad.

The OMB instead wants the document to suggest that the Clean Air Act is ineffective and that greenhouse gases should be regulated under new legislation. The draft is effectively being held hostage until EPA makes OMB's changes, since the White House must approve a final draft before EPA can release the document publicly.

The draft EPA document confirms that fuel efficiency could be improved to well above 35 miles per gallon by 2020; CO2 emissions could easily be regulated through the government-permit process and through a cap-and-trade system similar to existing programs for acid rain and mercury; and that overall, the regulations would be beneficial to the U.S. economy.

"The net benefit to society could be in excess of $2 trillion," according to the draft document.

Polar Scientists Predict Possibility of Open Water at North Pole This Summer

Polar scientists predict that Arctic sea ice could break up and leave a large patch of open water at the North Pole this summer for the first time in human history. Satellite data from recent weeks indicates that the rate of melting is faster than last year, when the Arctic experienced an all-time record loss of summer sea ice.

"From the viewpoint of science, the North Pole is just another point on the globe, but symbolically it is hugely important. There is supposed to be ice at the North Pole, not open water," said Mark Serreze of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado. Dr Serreze predicts that "it's even-odds whether the North Pole melts out" this summer.

Ice scientists are quick to point out the difficulty in predicting exactly how much of the ice will melt this summer, but note that the presence of large amounts of thinner ice formed over a single year is more vulnerable to melting than the normally thick ice formed over many years at the Pole. Global warming has increased average temperatures far more at the polar regions than elsewhere, and the loss of sea ice leads to more dark, open ocean which absorbs more heat and could raise polar temperatures even higher.

BLM Halts Solar Projects Citing Need for Environmental Review

The Bureau of Land Management declared a moratorium on new solar power projects on public land until it studies their potential environmental impact, a process that could take two years and cripple the booming solar industry. Faced with a surge in the number of proposed solar power plants as demand for alternative energy accelerates daily, BLM says it will spend up to two years conducting an extensive study to determine how the solar plants might affect the environment of 119 million acres of public land the bureau oversees in the West, most of which is ideally suited for solar energy.

"It doesn't make any sense," said Holly Gordon, vice president of Ausra, a California-based solar thermal energy company. "The Bureau of Land Management land has some of the best solar resources in the world. This could completely stunt the growth of the industry."

The moratorium, combined with the uncertain future of federal solar investment tax credits set to expire at the end of the year because Congress has failed to renew them, could stifle solar industry growth and prevent or delay the creation of thousands of jobs in the process. During 2006-2007, when the tax credit was solidly in place and the BLM was calling for projects to be approved in a "timely manner," the solar installation boom generated 6,000 new jobs and injected $2 billion into the U.S. economy.

Due to BLM's decision to shelve new proposals until they finish the study, small solar energy businesses may be forced to turn to more expensive private land for development, adding another barrier to the rapid deployment of viable alternative energy sources.

U.S. Mayors Resolve to Avoid Burning Dirty Tar Sands Oil

The U.S. Conference of Mayors adopted a resolution this week discouraging the use of high carbon fuels such as tar sands, liquid coal, and oil shale.

"We don't want to spend taxpayer dollars on fuels that make global warming worse," said Mayor Kitty Piercy, of Eugene, Oregon, who submitted the resolution.

The mayors' resolution discourages participating U.S. cities from purchasing oil derived from the tar sands operations in Alberta, Canada, noting that "... the production of tar sands oil from Canada emits approximately three times the carbon dioxide pollution per barrel as does conventional oil production and significantly damages Canada's Boreal forest ecosystem - the world's largest carbon storehouse ..."

The process of extracting oil from tar sands also uses more water and requires larger amounts of energy than conventional oil extraction.

"Not only will we give preference to clean, renewable energy sources, we are standing our ground when it comes to synthetic petroleum-based fuels that exacerbate global warming," said Mayor Marty Blum of Santa Barbara, California.

More than 850 mayors are signatories to the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, pledging to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in their respective cities in the absence of federal leadership under the Bush administration.

Bush Signs $162B War Spending Bill for Iraq, Afghanistan
President Bush signed a $162 billion war spending bill this week, bringing the amount Congress has provided for the Iraq war since it began in 2003 to more than $650 billion and in Afghanistan to nearly $200 billion.

Those figures don't represent the total amount spent by the military, however, since a new Congressional Research Service report shows the U.S. government has spent about $700 billion on "military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans' health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks." Roughly 75% of that money has been devoted to the war in Iraq, CRS estimates.

Afghanistan Civilian Death Toll Rises Sharply

The number of civilians killed in Afghanistan in the first half of 2008 climbed by almost two-thirds compared with last year, according to the United Nations. Nearly 700 civilians have died, demonstrating the instability and violence afflicting the country, which is struggling to deliver emergency aid to civilians. Sixty percent of the casualties were caused by insurgents, while government or foreign troops killed 255 people, the UN said. The causes of 21 other deaths were unclear.

U.S. Officials Advised Iraqi Oil Ministry on No-Bid Contracts

The State Department led a team of American advisers who played an integral role in setting up no-bid contracts for five major Western oil companies to develop Iraq's largest oil fields. Despite earlier claims to the contrary, the Bush Administration had direct involvement in the negotiations to open Iraq's oil to commercial development, sending U.S. government lawyers and private-sector consultants to Iraq with contract templates and detailed suggestions on how the deals should be drafted. Sources familiar with the proceedings confirmed that representatives of the State, Commerce, Energy and Interior Departments have all aided the Iraqi Oil Ministry on how best to commercialize Iraq's oil deposits.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice claimed on Fox News earlier this month that "The United States government has stayed out of the matter of awarding the Iraq oil contracts. It's a private sector matter."

The no-bid contracts were widely anticipated to be awarded Monday to Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, Total and Chevron, but the Iraqi Oil Ministry balked at the last minute. The Ministry revealed that the Western oil companies demanded to receive a share in the profits from future oil development, rather than cash payments for services rendered which the Iraqi government prefers.

The confirmation of Bush administration meddling in Iraq's oil dealings leaves little question that the real intent of the invasion of Iraq was to earn American companies a piece of Iraq's oil endowment.

"We pretend it is not a centerpiece of our motivation, yet we keep confirming that it is," said Frederick D. Barton, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Despite the fact that other countries provided free advice and services in the past few years to help the Iraqi Oil Ministry prepare to ramp up production, only Western companies have received the bigger oil contracts so far.

Scalia Continues to Blame Al Gore for the 2000 Election Debacle

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told the Telegraph (UK) that Al Gore should have conceded the 2000 election without legal action. Scalia played an integral part in stopping the Florida recount, joining four other justices who ruled the recount method impractical and handed the presidency to George W. Bush. Scalia said, "if you don't like it, don't blame it on me. I didn't bring it into the courts. Mr Gore brought it into the courts. So if you don't like the courts getting involved talk to Mr Gore."

"So I have no regrets about taking the case and I think our decision in the case was absolutely right. But if you ask me 'Am I sorry it all happened?' Of course I am sorry it happened there was no way that we were going to come out of it smelling like a rose. I mean, one side or the other was going to feel that was a politicized decision but that goes with the territory."

KBR Accused of Knowingly Exposing U.S. Troops to Highly Toxic Chemical in Iraq

Defense contractor KBR is accused of knowingly exposing U.S. troops to sodium dichromate, a potentially lethal, carcinogenic chemical. KBR failed to warn 250 U.S. soldiers assigned to guard a crucial part of Iraq's oil infrastructure that the chemical was present all over the site. Witnesses, including a former KBR employee responsible for health and safety at the site, testified at a Capitol Hill hearing this week that many of the exposed soldiers were "bleeding from the nose, spitting blood," and getting sick while guarding the plant.

Scientific studies show that even short-term exposure to sodium dichromate - the same chemical that poisoned residents in Hinkley, CA made famous in the movie "Erin Brockovich" - can cause cancer and harm the liver and immune system, among other impacts.

Witnesses at the hearing testified that KBR supervisors initially told the soldiers that sodium dichromate was a "mild irritant," but finally acknowledged that the chemical was a potentially deadly substance and moved to clean up the site once soldiers starting getting ill.

Send tips about other stories the mainstream media forgot to report: unearthednews@gmail.com