60 million Americans would join a union if they could:
More than 1,000 New Jersey providers who open their homes to care for developmentally disabled adults have gained a voice on the job by joining the Communications Workers of America (CWA).
New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D) signed an executive order recognizing the union last week, two days after the state Board of Mediation verified that a majority of the workers, called sponsors, signed cards seeking representation by CWA Locals 1037 and 1040.
CWA Vice President Chris Shelton says:
This is what "standing together" really means. These two locals accomplished great things by working collectively.
This is why we need the Employee Free Choice Act, supported by Senator Obama -- people need to have a free choice, without employer intimidation, over whether or not to join a union. Unions provide a vital check against corporate abuse of power and allow workers to make a living wage and feed their families. Under an Obama administration, this act would become law all over the country.
The world's glaciers are retreating at an alarming rate.
Barack Obama on global warming:
The issue of climate change is one that we ignore at our own peril. There may still be disputes about exactly how much we're contributing to the warming of the earth's atmosphere and how much is naturally occurring, but what we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe.
Obama visited Scranton, PA last night:
Morning Edition reported that the number of Iraqis applying for asylum in the EU has doubled. The number went up to 38,000 this year from under 20,000 last year. Iraq is one of the key sources of asylum seekers for Europe. This undermines the claim by the Bush administration that the McCain Doctrine is working. And one of the deadliest attacks of the year overshadowed Dick Cheney's visit to Iraq.
Barack Obama on the "surge:"
The Surge: The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq's political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq's civil war. At great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006. Moreover, Iraq's political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war.
Military Strain: The military is being severely strained by repeated and lengthy deployments. The Army and Marine Corps are facing a crisis as 40 percent of their equipment is either in Iraq or being repaired. This crisis has led many of our generals to conclude that current demands make our forces unable to rapidly respond to the contingencies we may face in the future.
What you can do following Obama's speech on race:
- Send an email to everyone in your address book and tell them that you saw/read/listened to the speech (whatever is correct) and that it is wonderful (as long as you believe it was so) and that they should watch it on their own WITHOUT listening to the spin artists out there.
- When you get hold of the Youtube piece do the same.
- Step away from Kos and go to the comment and message boards on the national, local papers online and tell them that you liked the speech, are proud of Obama and that together -- one million strong -- we are going to change this country. Send out an LTE as well but first act online.
Abu Girhab prisoners packed into icewater garbage cans:
Muslim prisoners held in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison were submerged in water-filled garbage cans with ice or put naked under cold showers in near-freezing rooms until they went into shock, Sgt. Javal Davis, who served with the 372nd Military Police Company there, has told a national magazine.
Davis, from the Roselle, N.J., area, said while stationed at the prison he also saw an incinerator with "bones in it" that he believed to be a crematorium and said some prisoners were starved prior to their interrogation.
Another soldier that had been stationed at Abu Ghraib, M.P. Sabrina Harman---who gained dubious fame for making a thumbs-up sign posing over the body of a prisoner she believed tortured to death---said the U.S. had imprisoned "women and children" on Tier 1B, including one child was as young as ten.
"Like a number of the other kids and of the women there, he was being held as a pawn in the military’s effort to capture or break his father," write co-authors Philip Gourevitch and Errol Morris in the March 24th issue of The New Yorker magazine, which describes Abu Ghraib in a 14-page article titled "Exposure."
Obama calls torture a "betrayal of American values:"
"This is NOT how a serious Administration would approach the problem of terrorism," thundered Senator Barack Obama last week on the floor of the US Senate, after it passed Bush Administration-supported S. 3930, Military Commissions Act of 2006, which approved US torture of detainees and stripped Constitutional rights away from detainees.
"And the sad part about all of this is that this betrayal of American values is unnecessary," Senator Obama continued.
"We could've drafted a bipartisan, well-structured bill that provided adequate due process through the military courts, had an effective review process that would've prevented frivolous lawsuits being filed and kept lawyers from clogging our courts, but upheld the basic ideals that have made this country great."
Hillary Clinton -- soft on Blackwater:
CLINTON CLAIMED SHE DIDN'T KNOW THAT BLACKWATER WAS GIVEN IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION
Clinton Admitted That She Didn't Know About A Provision That Gave Blackwater Immunity From Prosecution In Iraq Because Of An Exemption Passed After The US Invasion. "Clinton was asked about a statement she made... when criticizing the Bush administration's conduct in Iraq. She said she hadn't known that Blackwater USA, the military contractor accused of killing more than a dozen Iraqi civilians last month, had immunity from prosecution in Iraq because of an exemption approved soon after the US invasion. 'Maybe I should have known about it; I did not know about it,' she said... Asked if that suggested she, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was not sufficiently vigilant on the contractors issue, she said she has been raising questions about contractors for several years and opposed the government's use of them." [Boston Globe, 10/11/07]
2004: Clinton Attended An Armed Services Committee Meeting Where Wolfowitz Testified on The Immunity Of Contractors—She Even Commented. On April 20, 2004, Clinton was listed in attendance at an Armed Services Committee meeting in which Paul Wolfowitz spoke of Order No. 17 saying, "Further, we have Coalition Provisional Authority Order No. 17, I believe it is, that goes into more detail about the rights and privileges and immunities that pertain to foreign forces providing for security in Iraq." Clinton responded on the subject of the military's role following Iraqi sovereignty saying, "I think that this is a serious issue, because it's not only the possibility that the definition will take on a life of its own, causing all kinds of unintended consequences, but that in fact the earlier questions that the chairman raised about the rules of engagement for our military and the authority that they have following this period of sovereignty, however one defines it, I think are going to be very sticky. And then you throw into the mix all these private contractors running around, heavily armed, I think it becomes even more of a challenge." [Senate Armed Services Committee Meeting, 4/20/04]
2003: Coalition Provisional Authority Declared Contractors Immune To Iraqi Law. Coalition Provisional Authority Order No. 17 ordered that "Unless provided otherwise herein, the MNF, the CPA, Foreign Liaison Missions, their Personnel, property, funds and assets, and all International Consultants shall be immune from Iraqi legal process." The order also stated Contractors shall not be subject to Iraqi laws or regulations in matters relating to the terms and conditions of their Contract... Contractors shall be immune from Iraqi legal process with respect to acts performed by them pursuant to the terms and conditions of a Contract or any sub-contract thereto." [Coalition Provision Authority Order No. 17, 6/17/03]
WHILE CLINTON DID NOTHING, OBAMA SUBMITTED A BILL ADDRESSING CONTRACTOR OVERSIGHT IN FEBRUARY 2007 TO CLINTON'S COMMITTEE
FEB 2007: Obama Submitted a Bill to Make Contractors Accountable to Law—to Clinton's Committee. In February, Obama submitted "A bill to require accountability and enhanced congressional oversight for personnel performing private security functions under Federal contracts, and for other purposes." The act would clarify the legal status of contractors, subjecting them to the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) to ensure that all contractors working in war zones – regardless of contracting agency -– would be held accountable under U.S. law. Passed in 2000, MEJA says that contractors for the armed forces can be prosecuted under US law for crimes committed overseas. However, because companies like Blackwater have contracts with the State Department rather than the Defense Department, the company is not technically subject to that law. Obama's bill would also require federal agencies employing private security contractors to report to Congress on the details of those arrangements, such as the total number and cost of contractors, the number of contractors killed or wounded, information about the military and safety equipment provided to contractors, and details of disciplinary action taken against contractors. The bill was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services, which Clinton serves on. [S. 674, Introduced 2/16/07]
WHILE OBAMA HAS NO TIES TO THE PRIVATE MILITARY INDUSTRY AND DOES NOT ACCEPT LOBBYIST MONEY, BLACKWATER GOT ITS FIRST FEDERAL CONTRACT UNDER BILL CLINTON AND HAD NOTABLE TIES TO INDIVIDUALS LINKED TO THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN
Blackwater USA's First Federal Contract Was In 1998 -- Under The Clinton Administration. At a House committee hearing on private contractor oversight, Blackwater USA counsel Andrew Howell was asked when his company received it's first government contract. Howell replied, "I believe that was 1998. And I think we have contracts for training in the U.S. and contracts for security services overseas, and those are two different animals." Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT) inquired, "And that was under the Clinton administration?" Howell responded, "Yes, sir." [House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Hearing Transcript, 2/7/07]
Blackwater's Lawyer Is A Former Clinton White House Counsel. Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT) asked Blackwater USA counsel Andrew Howell "And do you have staff or contracts with people who've been employed by Clinton administration? [...] For instance, you're accompanied by counsel today. Do you know what is her name and what was her political experience?" Howell replied, "Yes, sir. Her name is Ms. Beth Nolan and she was, indeed, part of the Clinton administration, from my understanding." Nolan served as Counsel to the President of the United States from 1999-2001 In the White House, she was responsible for overseeing all legal matters for President Clinton and the White House staff. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Hearing Transcript, 2/7/07;
Mark Penn's Firm Did Public Relations Work For Blackwater. Burson-Marsteller has been brought aboard to do public relations work for Blackwater USA by the Washington law firms representing Blackwater-- McDermott Will & Emery and Crowell & Moring. One of the executives on the Blackwater account is Robert Tappan, a former State Department official. Tappan is a managing director of BKSH & Associates Worldwide, a Burson-Marsteller subsidiary. Paul Cordasco, a spokesman for Burson-Marsteller, said the company does not discuss its clients, but in a later a statement, Cordasco said BKSH helped Blackwater head Erik Prince prepare for his congressional hearing. "With the hearing over, BKSH's temporary engagement has ended," Cordasco said. [Associated Press, 10/5/07]
THE USE OF PRIVATE MILITARY COMPANIES EXPANDED DURING THE CLINTON ADMINSTRATION
Founder of Blackwater Credited Clinton Administration's Military Downsizing With Growth of Contracting Industry. The Weekly Standard reported that in 1996, Erik Prince left the Navy and founded Blackwater. "It was the end of the Cold War. The Clinton administration and Congress had been eagerly downsizing military facilities and training--much to the consternation of many officers, Prince included. Prince knew there would be a market for the kind of training Blackwater would provide; his initial purchase of 6,000 acres in Moyock does not suggest his vision for the company was modest." [Weekly Standard, 12/18/06]
Clinton Escalated The Use Of Private Military Companies. According to Mother Jones, "The use of private military companies, which gained considerable momentum under President Clinton, has escalated under the Bush administration. [...] Like the Clinton administration, the Bush administration is relying heavily on private military companies to wage the war on drugs in South America. Federal law bans U.S. soldiers from participating in Colombia's war against left-wing rebels and from training army units with ties to right-wing paramilitaries infamous for torture and political killings. There are no such restrictions on for-profit companies, though, and since the late 1990s, the United States has paid private military companies an estimated $1.2 billion, both to eradicate coca crops and to help the Colombian army put down rebels who use the drug trade to finance their insurgency." [Mother Jones, May/June, 1993]
The Clinton Administration's "'Privatize First, Ask Questions Later' Mentality Has Led to The Situation We Face Now In Iraq." In an article in The Nation, William D. Hartung wrote, "The latest wave of military privatization started in the first Bush Administration, when Defense Secretary Cheney asked Halliburton to study what it would cost to have a private company take charge of getting US forces overseas in a hurry. Halliburton was hired to do just that in Somalia, employing 2,500 people. The Clinton Administration picked up where Bush/Cheney left off, hiring Halliburton--then run by Cheney--as the logistics arm for the war in Kosovo. Halliburton's contract started out as a $ 180 million deal but soon mushroomed to more than $ 2.5 billion as the company built Camp Bondsteel and other military facilities on lavish, cost-plus terms. [...] But the urge to privatize soon expanded to include anything and everything, up to and including hiring former Green Berets and Navy SEALs for serious security and training functions. The 'privatize first, ask questions later' mentality has led to the situation we face now in Iraq, where private companies are performing front-line military functions ranging from providing security to the Coalition Provisional Authority (Blackwater) to training the new Iraqi army (Vinnell) to protecting oil pipelines (Erinys) to interrogating prisoners (CACI)." [The Nation, 6/7/04]
Erik Prince is a war criminal who should be tried and brought to justice for the murder of civilians, not coddled and protected.
Here is the full text of Barack Obama's speech. What struck me about the speech was not just the words, but the passion that came through. This was the most passion that I have ever seen in Obama, and this will stand him well. He was holding up in the polls, and today's speech will do him no harm.
What I think that Obama was doing was nothing less than an attempt to take a perceived weakness (Wright) and turn it into a strength -- turn it into a conversation about race that is long overdue. There is a lot of consensus that we have come a long ways since the 1960's. And there is a lot of consensus that we have not gotten far enough. The main question is, where do we go from here? I think that Obama's speech was a good start to that conversation.
The Columbia Journalism Review on Ron Fournier, who wrote a hit piece about Barack Obama:
But back to Fournier the Accountability Adviser. Turns out Fournier violates some of his own advice, as well.
Back in June Fournier wrote: "A colleague of mine in Washington...has an interesting rule about accountability journalism: Whenever possible, he avoids the phrase ‘critics say.’ More often than not, it’s a crutch to hide lazy reporting or uncourageous writing..." Apparently, "rivals say" is okay ("Is the Democratic presidential candidate a man of the people, as he says, or the fake his rivals call him?").
As is "some" say. Reports Fournier: "Some who call Edwards a hypocrite assume that a multimillionaire trial lawyer can’t be an authentic advocate for the poor and working people. That’s nonsense." That’s nonsense! This is, one imagines, what Fournier considers "courageous" reporting, telling readers that what "some" say is "nonsense!" (And it’s "nonsense" because, as Fournier observes, "You don’t need to be...crippled to aid those who can’t walk.") Yes, readers, it’s nonsense to assume that a rich lawyer can’t be an authentic advocate for the poor, but I’m going to spend the rest of the piece implying that, in this case, that assumption holds true.
That "Dear John" letter is growing longer by the day...
But I would go even farther than this piece. First of all, this is not a problem that is confined to one individual. The problem is that this is an institutional problem, where people like him or Judith Miller are willing to substitute their right-wing political agendas for real news. This is one of the cogs of the right-wing power machine -- write propaganda and pass it off as "news." This, I think, is one of the reasons why circulation is declining at many of our major newspapers. And then, there is the propensity to sensationalize and to blow out of proportion.
The problem with people like Fournier is not that he is racist, but that he has a sense of entitlement to the point where he thinks that the rules somehow do not apply to him. As the link above shows, he is well aware of the basic rules of journalism, yet he chooses to violate them anyway as long as it furthers the agenda of the Republican Party.
Initial reactions to Obama's speech from audience members were unanimously favorable:
Ray Jones, 44, executive director of Philadelphia Safety Net, an anti-violence program: "It was really pointed and it really captured what all of us talk about among ourselves, race, the elephant in the room. He came into the pain and he found something new. He talked about this in a way that white people could identify with."
Wilhelmina Moore, 55, director of constituent services for a member of the Philadelphia City Council: "He made it very plain that he supported his pastor. They’ve been friends for years and he made it plain that Rev. Wright is his own person. I loved Obama talking about his white mother and black father and all his aunts and uncles who are of every race _ and he loves them all."
Jay Leberman, who gave his age as "over 50" and who is the head of a Jewish day school: "I thought it was a brave and honest and quite articulate speech. I was pleased." Asked whether it would quell the controversy about Rev. Wright, he said, "People who see race and religion behind every issue would continue to do so." He added: "Had he come out and unequivocally disassociated himself totally from Rev. Wright, that would have showed a side of falsehood.... I thought he was honest."
The pro-Clinton Talk Left blog hearts Obama's speech:
Politically, he had to defend Rev. Wright or he would have lost a chunk of his African-American base. I think his liberal base will be more than satisfied. I suspect the only people who won't be persuaded are those that wouldn't have voted for him anyway.
Jonathan Singer on the Obama speech:
Put Obama's speech up against the other make-or-break speech we've seen this cycle on a controversial topic: Mitt Romney's address on his Mormon faith. In that earlier speech, Romney said little personal, little that could offend -- but also little that truly connected with voters. I do not doubt that Romney spoke from his heart. But in his couched terms, he was unable to reach the hearts of then American people.
Here, Obama took a leap of faith on a speech he personally penned. He put his heart on the line. And at least to me, a coastal American who grew up and lived for most of his life in a state (Oregon) that will be holding its nominating contest this May, he did connect. He hit the home run that Todd and Murray talked about.
I fully concede that this is not necessarily the way that the speech will be received all over the country. Race is viewed very differently in different quarters and corners of the country. Even the mention of race and the intense focus on the subject will, to some, turn them off to Obama. In short, this speech very much could have (and indeed still could) backfire.
But I do not know another way Obama could have done it. This was a speech Obama had to give, because of the politics of the moment but also because of the fundamental nature of his candidacy. Rather than keep these clearly simmering issues of race at arm's length in a way that I just don't think would have worked, Obama took the risk and said what was in his heart. And I'm not sure what more you can ask from a leader.
Mimikatz of Open Left:
Barack Obama's hearalded speech on race is the most honest appraisal of racial problems in America I can remember a politician ever giving. It is long and nuanced, not easy to encapsulate in sound-bites. He describes his experiences in the Trinity United church of Christ and with Reverend Wright, saying that while he disagrees with some of Wright's statements, he understands the frustrations that give rist to such views. He also understands the frustrations that give rise to views such as those expressed by Geraldine Ferraro. Both views, he says, are wrong because they are limited and based on stereotypes, and assume that America is static, that we cannot change.
Jeanee Moos, situation room "reporter," goes from bad to worse:
During the March 17 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, national news correspondent Jeanne Moos conducted a "quiz" of people on the street and asserted that Sen. Hillary Clinton "got the answer right when 60 Minutes asked, you don't believe Barack Obama is a Muslim?" But Moos went on to misrepresent Clinton's response by broadcasting only a portion of Clinton's response to correspondent Steve Kroft's questions during the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes. Moos aired only one comment Clinton made in which she said: "No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know." Moos then showed a video clip in which Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan emphasized the latter portion of Clinton's response: "Oh, as far as I know." In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented as a result of similar distortions by the media, Clinton's first three words in response to Kroft's initial question -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" -- was, "Of course not." Moreover, Clinton made clear that she equated the false rumor that Obama is a Muslim with "ridiculous rumors" that have circulated about her.
During her report, Moos also noted that "in a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 13 percent still thought Obama is a Muslim." When Moos later asked an unidentified man and woman to identify Obama's religion, the woman responded, "Muslim." Moos then asked, "Why do you think he's a Muslim?" The man responded: "Barack Hussein Obama." Moos then said, "Ah, that name." But as Media Matters documented, Moos was among the first national media figures to mention "that name." During the December 11, 2006, edition of CNN's The Situation Room, Moos said, "As if that similarity [between "Obama" and "Osama"] weren't enough. How about sharing the name of a former dictator? You know his middle name, Hussein."
This is just one more instance of Republican propaganda passing itself off as "news." This time, it seems like this "reporter" is blaming Hillary Clinton for something that she is doing herself. Crap is still king on CNN.
What might have been:
Five years ago today, on March 18, the British Parliament debated whether or not to support the pending U.S. attack on Iraq. It was already clear that the Bush administration was determined to attack, and desperately needed support from the U.K. That morning, Sojourners placed an ad in five major British newspapers – The Guardian, The Independent, The London Times, The Telegraph, and The Financial Times.
The ad was signed by five American church leaders who had met with then Prime Minister Tony Blair a month earlier in London – Jim Wallis (President of Sojourners), John Bryson Chane (Episcopal Bishop of Washington, D.C.), Clifton Kirkpatrick (Stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church USA), Melvin Talbert (Ecumenical Officer of the United Methodist Council of Bishops), and Daniel Weiss (Immediate past General Secretary of the American Baptist Churches in the USA).
Headlined, "Prime Minister Blair, it is two minutes before midnight. We need you to be a true friend to America in this critical hour," the ad began, "The world needs you to find a 'third way' between war and inaction. It is two minutes before midnight, and the world's people are desperate for an alternative to war." It outlined a six-point plan with solid options for disarming Iraq without war.
The whole world begged Tony Blair to say no. The whole world begged Hillary to say no. But they did not listen, instead, moving down the path of chaos and war. Barack Obama was one of the few people to got it -- got it that even if Saddam was guilty as charged, it did not necessitate war.
And this goes back into the conversation about race that Barack Obama intitated with his speech today -- the fact of the matter is that all of the hype leading up to war had a racial element to it -- the fear of the Scary Brown People. This is the same sort of scaremongering that is driving the hysteria about Jeremiah Wright -- even though he is a much more complicated figure than the 15-second soundbytes that the media loves to play. And the problem is that many people still don't get it.
The problem is that people look at the 15-second soundbytes that the media loves to play, look at the inflammatory remarks in question, and then stop. They never consider why people make the kinds of remarks that they do, where they are coming from, or why a reasonable person would feel the way Jeremiah Wright does. Of course the media does not care about these things -- they only care about the horserace or about the most shocking things that happen or the latest (phony) terror alerts.
I submit that any good starting point for a conversation about race involves us -- we can't do anything about the bubbleheaded beach blonde, but we can do something about us. We can turn off the media and turn on some real news from progressive or alternative sites. After all, you never hear about Hillary Clinton and her involvement with The Fellowship from the media - it was Mother Jones that alerted us to this shadowy, extremist group. You never hear about Hagee, the man who endorsed John McCain, from the media -- he is too much of a media darling for them to touch him with a 10-foot pole. They are swooning and fawning over him like they did George Bush in the 2000 election.
A good starting point would be places that talk about progressive politics from a different perspective. There is Afro-Netizen, an entire network of bloggers blogging from a Black perspective.
The Blog and The Bullet posts on various racial issues all over the world.
Angry Indian offers radical politics from a Native American perspective. He also has a whole host of links to left-wing and socialist sites.
Women's e-news offers news all over the world from a feminist perspective.
Naturally, I don't expect people to agree with everything offered. But what I do think is that it is important for us to understand where people are coming from and why they think the way that they do about things. The thing to do is to turn off the TV and reach outside one's normal bubble of thought.