|
Sleeping in Farragut Square
By Alan Herzfeld On June 28, I had the opportunity to view two very different Washingtons. First, I was on Capitol Hill, attending a hearing on religious tolerance at the Air Force Academy and a press conference and platform rollout for the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Great Congressional leaders like Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee spoke about the need to protect equality of opportunity, not just the top one percent, and the importance of a safety net for those who cannot always do the job themselves. Jesse Jackson spoke of the need to protect the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which has been under attack as the Bush administration stands idly by and lets states chip away at our most cherished and most important right. After leaving Capitol Hill, I took the metro down to Farragut Square and saw why the goals of the Congressional Progressive Caucus were so important. Four blocks from the White House, in the capital city of the richest nation that the world has ever known, people were sitting on benches in the square, with everything they own in the world in a bag next to them. These people, men and women, were dirty, looked tired, hungry, and dejected. They could see the affluence around them. People were going to and from work wearing suits, talking on cell phones, listening to music, and all they could do was stare blankly ahead. Most would probably not have a roof over their head that night, and where their next meal would come from was unknown. The system failed these people. They are Americans. They deserve both opportunity and security, but they have fallen through the cracks. Undoubtedly some of them are veterans, and wore the uniform and defended this country, only to come back and be neglected and ignored. Even if they are not veterans, however, no one deserves to be treated this way. And yet President Bush believes that there are no problems in America today that cannot be fixed with a tax cut. I wonder if President Bush has taken the opportunity, as he speeds through Washington's streets in one of his armored limousines or over the city in his Marine helicopter on his way to his private 747, to look around him and see the problems in the streets. This is not an unreasonable question. It is not like he has to go to New Delhi, Mozambique, or Mexico City, or even to San Francisco, Atlanta, or the Bedford-Stuyvesant area of Brooklyn. All he has to do to see the poverty that Americans live with every day is walk four blocks to Farragut Square. A society is judged by the least of its citizens. President Bush has forgotten this and is instead toadying to his cronies and saving them money with his tax cuts for the top one percent. These super-rich executives and heirs should realize that yes, they pay more in taxes than the average American, but they also earn more and therefore have a responsibility to those who and cannot make upwards of $500,000 per year, and in some cases over $1,000,000. America is best served when we raise everybody up. We all benefit when no one is sleeping on the streets. President Bush needs to end these disastrous tax cuts for the wealthy. Trickle-down Reagonomics did not work in the 1980s, and it cannot work today. Instead, we need to build up our foundations, reinforce the least of our society, and provide assistance to those who need it. Then we can and will be the great nation envisioned by so many of our greatest leaders on both sides of the aisle. Only then can we truly say that we have reached the American dream, the true manifest destiny, an America where no one has to sleep in Farragut Square. Alan Herzfeld is a student at the University of California-San Diego
Supreme Court puts Journalists in the Line of Fire
By Alan Herzfeld On June 27, the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals of two journalists who would not identify their sources, letting their convictions stand and forcing them to face prison time. The Court has made a grievous error in issuing this non-decision. In denying the appeal and ducking the issue, the justices have again restricted one of the fundamental rights that protect democracy and hold the government accountable for its actions. The First Amendment to the Constitution provides for, among other things, a free press in this country. Journalists follow a calling that takes them around the world to report back what is going on around us, be it charges of torture at Guantanamo, news on the elections and deaths in Iraq, or on cases of the President of the United States violating the law in covering up a crime. We were reminded again just a few weeks ago how important investigative journalism can be when Mark Felt unmasked himself as Deep Throat, the secret source who was critical in uncovering the Watergate break-in and cover-up that brought down the Nixon presidency. It is even more appalling that in this environment of renewed interest in investigative journalism and awareness of the importance of legitimate, high-placed anonymous sources, the Supreme Court has denied reporters this important avenue of information. Without the guarantee of the protection of anonymity, it is much more likely that those with information will not come forward. While their information can be critical, their coming forward may depend on their identity being protected. It is the same reason we have witness protection and whistleblower laws, so that fear of retribution does not get in the way of someone doing the right thing. In 1965, the Supreme Court recognized that there was a right to privacy in what was termed the "penumbra of rights" in different amendments to the Constitution. This set the precedent for recognizing and protecting fundamental rights that were not specifically listed in the document. The protection of non-enumerated rights is especially important when the right in question is related to one of the fundamental rights listed in the constitution, as is the case here. The First Amendment specifically says that the press is protected, but, in this case, the Court has taken the teeth out of that right. It is as if they have handed journalists a flashlight, complete with batteries, but have taken away the light bulb inside. It looks good, almost as if it could work, but in truth is nothing more than a shadow of what it could and should be.
"I'm not ready to throw my future-and the future of this country-away"
From Kate Mewhiney I turned 18 in January of 2001, so last year was my first chance to vote in a presidential election. This was my chance to make a difference and take part in the democratic process, and I was optimistic. Maybe it was just youthful idealism, but I really believed the 2004 election would bring about change. That not only would we get a new president, but that the youth vote, the 18-30 demographic that has for years been written off as an indifferent and uninformed group, would finally arrive at the polls and emerge as a legitimate political force. You can imagine my disappointment with the outcome. Now, with my college graduation fast approaching, I find myself living in a country that is going in the wrong direction. The line between church and state is being dangerously blurred, the president is pushing the country toward a government ruled by fundamentalist Christian conservatives, and the arrogant foreign policies of the administration have shattered our reputation abroad. As a young person who is also a liberal, I find myself a double minority, a part of two groups whose voices are not being heard in today's government. Despite a significant rise in the 18-30 voter turnout in 2004, we are still dismissed as an apathetic generation. And the protests of democrats are being ignored or outright rejected in the national discourse. I'm finding it a difficult political climate in which to make my voice heard. My mother, a liberal of the baby-boomer generation, understands what I'm going through. She was my age when Nixon was re-elected, and she sees disturbing similarities between the two presidencies. "Trust me," she said. "It's a lot harder to go through at my age." I should have hope, she told me, and she's right. 22 years old is too young to give up on this country. Despite the outrages I see every day, I'm holding onto the youthful idealism I had before the election, because I know things will change. We just have to keep working at it. It's not easy. It's exhausting to maintain the level of anger necessary to fight back. The frustration can be so overwhelming sometimes that it feels like maybe it would be easier to just give up. But if we become complacent, then we really have lost our voice. And I'm not ready to throw my future-and the future of this country-away. Kate is a regular contributor to eliberal.org and is a student at the University of Maryland.
ADA National Conference: Awards Banquet
After several days of exciting panel discussions and informative workshops, ADA conventioneers break this evening for the annual ADA Awards Banquet. Honorees are: Labor Honoree, Thomas Buffenbarger, President, International Association of Machinists Winn Newman Lifetime Achievement, Senator George McGovern Reuther/Chavez Workers' Rights Award, Representative David Bonior Reception starts at 6:30pm at the Washington Court Hotel, 525 New Jersey Avenue
ADA National Conference Starts Today
Gender Equality Lessons...from Iraq??
From Corinne Smith Due to Iraqi election law, approximately 30% of parliamentarians must be women. In the US today, only 15% of the members of Congress are women. Evidently, the U.S. could benefit from election law as progressive as that of Iraq.
Democracy and the War on Terror
From Ryan Fant Speaking in Cairo on Tuesday, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice reiterated the Bush administration's seemingly newfound and unwavering support for democracy. She declared that, "For 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region here in the Middle East, and we achieved neither. Now we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people." Rice's comments correctly point out that during at least the last half-century, the United State's foreign policy has been more predicated on promoting stability than democracy. For example, in 1953 we overthrew the freely elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mossadeq, and replaced him with the brutally repressive Shah, an action that directly contributed to the 1979 Iranian revolution. We then supported a young dictator, Saddam Hussein, as a counterweight to the Iranian Islamic state we had helped create. Rice would like the world to believe that the Bush Administration has repudiated this past and now is an ardent supporter of democracy. When the administration's claims of WMDs in Iraq turned out to be false, Bush changed his rhetoric and justified the war in Iraq, and the broader War on Terror, on the grounds that it promoted democracy. Bush's supporters have pointed to modest and unproven democratic gains in the region to validate Bush's policies. These gains have included the opening of municipal elections in Saudi Arabia, the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, and the promise of more open elections in Egypt. While the Bush administration has freely pointed to these accomplishments, it has failed to mention that Bush has backed repressive and undemocratic countries such as Uzbekistan and Pakistan because of their support in the War on Terror. Recently over 700 civilian protesters were gunned down by the forces of Uzbek dictator Karimov, but our criticism was muted because of our desire for continued access to their airbase. President Bush has repeatedly praised Pakistani President Musharraf as a bold leader "dedicated in the protection of his own people," despite Musharraf's dismal human rights record and undemocratic ascension to power in a military coup. The fallacy of Bush's praise is evident by the fact that on average a woman is raped every two hours in Pakistan and every day two women die in honor killings. These crimes are most often unpunished. Rice's promise of supporting the "democratic aspirations of all people" must ring hollow to the millions of people who struggle under the despotic rule of our allies in the War on Terror.
Playing Politics with Big Tobacco
From Kate Mewhiney Earlier this month, the Justice Department shocked everyone-including its own lawyers-when it reduced the penalties being sought in the landmark lawsuit against the Tobacco Industry from $130 billion to $10 billion. The order to trim down the asking price came from Associate Attorney General Robert McCallum, overruling the protests of the government's lawyers on the case. But why? Why, in the 11th hour of the five-year case, back off so dramatically? Why deliberately undermine the prosecution's case? Why hit the Tobacco Industry with what equates to no more than a slap on the wrist? The Department of Justice has offered no explanation whatsoever, leaving critics to form their own theories. There is a long list of connections between the Tobacco Industry and the Bush administration. Senior Advisor Karl Rove was a political consultant to Phillip Morris, one of the six defendants in the case, during the 1990s. McCallum, who reportedly was the driving force behind the cut back, has in the past worked for law firms representing tobacco companies. And in 2004, the Tobacco Industry contributed $2.7 million to Republicans. Many involved in the case fear that the decision to change course so abruptly will appear politically motivated, which is exactly what critics of the move have charged. After the announcement of the change was made in court, District Court Judge Gladys Kessler said: "Perhaps it suggests that additional influences have been brought to bear on what the government's case is." An internal ethics investigation has been launched by the Justice Department. The Bush Administration has made it evident that it never wanted the suit to see the light of day. John Ashcroft, who opposed the suit while in the Senate, tried to first cut funding and then shelve the case entirely as Attorney General. Shortly after taking office in 2001, President Bush said in an interview with Fox News about the lawsuit, "At some point, you know, enough is enough." And now, Harvard business professor Max Bazerman, who was a government witness in the trial, has come forward to say that he was pressured by the Justice Department to alter his testimony. The Washington Post reports that Bazerman said a lawyer for the prosecution passed along the "strong request" of top Justice Department officials that he soften his recommended penalties for the Tobacco Industry. Bazerman alleges that McCallum threatened to have him removed from the witness list if he did not comply. To be fair, the lawsuit has carried a political undercurrent since its inception. President Clinton's motives were certainly political when he announced his plans for the case in his 1999 State of the Union address. But the Bush administration is using its considerable resources and power to undermine a crucial piece of litigation in an attempt to protect its own interests. The penalties awarded in this lawsuit could help millions; specifically, the 45 million current smokers in the United States. But it is clear by its reluctance to punish the Tobacco Industry, and by attempts to derail the suit altogether, that the Bush administration is more concerned with protecting the guilty than in aiding the victims.
Heated Hearing Exposes Guantanamo Embarrassment
From Chris Sousa This week Senator Specter of Pennsylvania called a public hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee to look at the policies and procedures of Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. The Committee met due to rising concern around the country about keeping "enemy combatants" incarcerated with only the vaguest guarantees of due process normally available to prisoners of war. The members of the Committee wanted answers to questions over how the Administration allowed for the creation of what many call a "legal black hole" that has proved to be detrimental to winning the hearts and minds in the global war on terror. One of the most startling revelations of the hearing was the testimony of Lieutenant Commander Charles D. Swift, a member of the JAG-Corps assigned as defense counsel to a detainee for a hearing at the base's military tribunal. According to Lt. Commander Swift, the prosecutor of the case itself facilitated access to the client. The opportunity for any visit was contingent on the guarantee of a guilty plea for the detainee that had not yet been charged with anything. This startling lack of respect for impartiality and fairness exemplifies the negligence of human rights apparent at Guantanamo Bay. Even more deplorable was the evasion of several specific questions about Guantanamo Bay. Senator Biden of Delaware made simple inquiries about the detainees at the facility, and every Administration official claimed it was outside of their scope to comment on such issues as the number of people incarcerated, the countries in which they were captured, and how the military processed these individuals before defining them as "enemy combatant". These evasive tactics were unconvincing, as the other testimony given by these officials illustrated their proximity to and in-depth knowledge of these issues. While not comparable to Soviet gulags, as Amnesty International said in a recent report, and likely home to some "very bad people", as Vice President Dick Cheney said on Fox News on Sunday, the practice of ignoring the legal processes and procedures of the Military Code of Conflict not only allows for the indefinite incarceration of an unknown number of innocent Arab men and women, but also lessens the appeal of democracy in a region of the world where that is needed. Extralegal activities of the Bush Administration at Guantanamo Bay might save us from a handful of terrorist suspects, but will only create future terrorists and serve to fuel American disenchantment abroad. In order to save the rule of law at home, and to restore America's image as the shining "city on a hill" abroad, voters should call their Members of Congress and ask them to take charge in investigating the Bush Administration's extraordinary avoidance of the rule of law.
Lines in the Sand
From Chris Sousa In the aftermath of the Texas redistricting debacle, where Republicans re-drew legislative boundaries mid-decade to squeeze a few more seats out of the Democratic column, many felt that the issue was settled until the next round after the next Census. However, the Georgia legislature recently approved new boundaries for the 2006 races, which may spark the fuse on ad hoc redistricting on both sides of the aisle. Congressman Tanner of Tennessee has introduced the “Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act of 2005 which would initiate necessary reforms to save the integrity of our political system. In less than ten percent of the 435 House races in 2004 did the winner receive 55 percent of the vote or less. This nationwide, non-competitiveness is a direct result of the redistricting process of 49 of our nation's states, which counter-intuitively invest the power to draw legislative boundaries in the political branches. With the advent of computer programs that can create detailed lines that take into account voting patterns, politicians now can pick their voter base. In today's America, representatives now select their constituents, not the other way around. The main byproduct of this system has been the ideological polarization in the House of Representatives who can rely on the votes from their partisan base and need not appeal to the political center for re-election. Congressman Tanner's proposed bill will divorce the boundaries process from the political branches and invest the district drawing powers with an independent panel. This set-up mirrors those in other democracies with Single-Member Districts, such as the United Kingdom and Canada. Under the bill, each state's commission will be equally appointed by the majority and minority party in the state legislature, and will not be allowed to consider such information as voter registration and patterns and will instead attempt to craft a map faithful to existing municipal and county lines. In order to avoid a heated partisan battle after the next census and to temper the ideological gulf in Congress, legislators should pass Congressman Tanner's bill.
Sign A Petition to Save Public Broadcasting
Federal funding for NPR and PBS is in danger. A House panel has voted to eliminate all public funding for NPR and PBS. Sign MoveOn.org's petition to stop this madness!!! Click HERE for more information and to participate.
Bunker Busted
From Meagan Fassinger Despite efforts by the Bush administration to reinstate funding for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator program in the Department of Energy's budget for fiscal year 2006, the House Appropriations Committee passed a bill on Tuesday, June 7th, which excluded the requested money for the program. The administration sought $4 million to resume the "bunker-buster" feasibility program on developing a new nuclear weapons capability for striking hardened and deeply buried targets at the Energy Department. The Senate Armed Services Committee, however, authorized $4 million for the nuclear penetrator study to resume at the Energy Department. The final outcome of the program will likely be decided in conference when the House and the Senate meet to settle differences between their respective bills.
KGB Jr.?
The editorial page of President Bush's home newspaper in Texas, the Waco Tribune Herald, had this to say about the "Patriot" Act and the push to expand its reach. "This is just the opposite direction Congress should be heading. It should be putting the brakes on the accelerating assault on civil liberties inherent in the Patriot Act.
Congress needs to rein in the act's provisions that allow "sneak, peak" searches for people who aren't suspected of terrorism or espionage. The over-arching invasion of privacy and lack of due process in routine matters far outside of the "war on terrorism" is the real problem with the Patriot Act.
In the 1960s people's homes were searched and they were subject to surveillance because of their beliefs and not because of any crime they'd committed or of which they'd even been suspected.
The Patriot Act portends similar over-reactions in the name of the "war on terrorism." When a judge is convinced that invasive action fits within that war, he or she will consent.
Need a warrant? Tell it to a judge." Read the full article HERE
If You Don't Like The Weather...
well, if you are the Bush Administration just alter the report to meet your needs. Funny. Not to us. A U.S. official did just that when he changed climate reports to downplay the effects of gas emissions on global warming. Is it a surprise that he was a former employee of the American Petroleum Institute? Alert-Foxes running all hen houses in the Bush Regime!!! Parts of Reuters story: WASHINGTON - A White House official, who previously worked for the American Petroleum Institute, has repeatedly edited government climate reports in a way that downplays links between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, The New York Times reported on Wednesday. Philip Cooney, chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, made changes to descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists and their supervisors, the newspaper said, citing internal documents. Click HERE for the full article.
|
|
