What a difference a year makes. It seemed last time this season, Obama-mania was at fever pitch. Progressives felt they finally had a person in the White House they could rely on--or at least push in their preferred direction. Both houses of Congress were in the hands of the Democrats. The GOP was in defeat; President George W. Bush was a lameduck; by January, Vice President Dick Cheney would be in a wheelchair. Dissent or criticism of President Obama was not tolerated, even as some looked on nervously at the team of advisors he was selecting--who seemed much more conservative than expected. Still, all was well. Everyone settled into a "wait and see," expecting great things. After a tumultous 12 months however, Obama's starpower has been reduced to a glimmer. And even some of his most avid supporters are voicing dissent. From the Congressional Black Caucus to Joe Conason, to even members of the Democratic Senate, there are critical words for the Obama administration as it wraps up its first year. Unlike the inane teabaggers, who in their frothing racial animus cheer on failure, this dissent is borne of frustration and disappointment--from a base that feels neglected and demoralized. And it doesn't help when the president sends out his attack dogs to bite those very people--the ones who worked hardest to get him elected. Of course, there's still time to turn this around. I don't think it's necessarily that supporters are "abandoning" they president, as one article puts it. Rather, Obama's critics on the left are just looking for a fighter and a leader, the kind they thought they elected. They'd rather see him succeed than fail, realizing the alternative to having him in the White House is simply too terrible to contemplate.
Below are a few articles on this very topic. I hope somehow, they reach the eyes of the one guy who needs to read them most.
Leadership, Obama Style, and the Looming Losses in 2010: Pretty Speeches, Compromised Values, and the Quest for the Lowest Common Denominator
By Drew Western- 12-21-09
Somehow the president has managed to turn a base of new and progressive voters he himself energized like no one else could in 2008 into the likely stay-at-home voters of 2010, souring an entire generation of young people to the political process. It isn't hard for them to see that the winners seem to be the same no matter who the voters select (Wall Street, big oil, big Pharma, the insurance industry).
Black Caucus tells Obama you've done too little for African-Americans
By Silla Brush - 12/02/09
Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) members on Wednesday criticized the Obama administration for not doing enough to help African-Americans through the bleak economy.
Feingold: Obama Responsible For Loss Of Public Option
Sam Stein 12-20-09
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) formally announced on Sunday that he would support the Senate's final version of health care reform. But in doing so he cast blame for the loss of a public option for insurance coverage partially on the president's shoulders and urged House and Senate negotiators to re-insert the government-run plan back into the legislation during conference committee.
Are Blacks Abandoning Obama?
By Lloyd Grove- 12/15/09
Danny Glover, Jesse Jackson, and other activists talk to Lloyd Grove about disappointment in the African-American community with the president’s first year.
Monday, December 21, 2009
The Fury of the Left
Friday, December 11, 2009
Obama's 9 Surges
At Westpoint last week, President Barack Obama announced a much awaited troop surge in the Afghan war he has inherited, and now expanded. Some 30,000 troops, and an untold number of contractors/support staff, would be sent to Afghanistan in the hopes of stabilizing the shattered country. What was lost to the many media pundits who discussed the speech later, is that this is hardly the first "surge" President Obama has implemented. A previous unremarked surge happened in March, when 21,000 U.S. troops were sent to Afghanistan. There have been previous increases in intelligence members and private contractors steadily since November 2008.
In the following article Tom Engelhardt recounts what he calls the "9 Surges of Barack Obama." Time will tell if we'll see a 10th....
The Nine Surges of Obama’s War
How to Escalate in Afghanistan
By Tom Engelhardt
In his Afghan “surge” speech at West Point last week, President Obama offered Americans some specifics to back up his new “way forward in Afghanistan.” He spoke of the “additional 30,000 U.S. troops” he was sending into that country over the next six months. He brought up the “roughly $30 billion” it would cost us to get them there and support them for a year. And finally, he spoke of beginning to bring them home by July 2011. Those were striking enough numbers, even if larger and, in terms of time, longer than many in the Democratic Party would have cared for. Nonetheless, they don’t faintly cover just how fully the president has committed us to an expanding war and just how wide it is likely to become.
Despite the seeming specificity of the speech, it gave little sense of just how big and how expensive this surge will be. In fact, what is being portrayed in the media as the surge of November 2009 is but a modest part of an ongoing expansion of the U.S. war effort in many areas. Looked at another way, the media's focus on the president’s speech as the crucial moment of decision, and on those 30,000 new troops as the crucial piece of information, has distorted what’s actually underway.
In reality, the U.S. military, along with its civilian and intelligence counterparts, has been in an almost constant state of surge since the last days of the Bush administration. Unfortunately, while information on this is available, and often well reported, it’s scattered in innumerable news stories on specific aspects of the war. You have to be a media jockey to catch it all, no less put it together.
What follows, then, is my own attempt to make sense of the nine fronts on which the U.S. has been surging, and continues to do so, as 2009 ends. Think of this as an effort to widen our view of Obama’s widening war.
Full article here.
Monday, November 30, 2009
That "Bitch of a War"
As President Obama prepares to announce what will most likely be an increase in troops in Afghanistan Tuesday night in the midst of a troubling economy, high unemployment and other domestic issues, I could not help but be reminded of the regretful lament of a previous leader, whose blind loyalty to a war ruined his more lofty ideals...
"I knew from the start that I was bound to be crucifed either way I moved. If I left the woman I really loved-the Great Society-in order to get involved in that bitch of a war on the other side of the world, then I would lose everything at home. All my programs…. But if I left that war and let the Communists take over South Vietnam, then I would be seen as a coward and my nation would be seen as an appeaser and we would both find it impossible to accomplish anything for anybody anywhere on the entire globe."--LBJ on Vietnam
Tragic. Michael Moore has more to say...
An Open Letter to President Obama From Michael Moore
Dear President Obama,
Do you really want to be the new "war president"? If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do -- destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they've always heard is true -- that all politicians are alike. I simply can't believe you're about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn't so.
Full letter here.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Rush & Newt Are Winning?
Rush and Newt are winning? When I first read that title by E.J. Dionne in the Washington Post, I was puzzled. Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich winning? If anything their over-the-top antics have mostly backfired. In their attempts to paint President Barack Obama as a socialist, un-American and the dangerous "black other," they have mostly managed to alienate themselves and their party. Obama's approval rating remains high and most seem pleased, or at least comfortable, with his overall performance. So I wasn't certain what Dionne could have meant. If anything, Rush and Newt appear to be losing. But after reading his article, I was left wondering if perhaps Dionne didn't have a good point.
Read more below...
Since the beginning of his presidency, we have been held hostage to acts of reckless stupidity from the GOP and its surrogates. From FOX News to Glenn Beck to Rush Limbaugh, the right-wing noise machine has been consistent with its outlandish reactionary attacks. In the face of this the GOP has been either silent or subservient, turning themselves into willing accomplices.
E.J. Dionne writes:The power of the Limbaugh-Gingrich axis means that Obama is regularly cast as somewhere on the far left end of a truncated political spectrum. He's the guy who nominates a "racist" to the Supreme Court (though Gingrich retreated from the word yesterday), wants to weaken America's defenses against terrorism and is proposing a massive government takeover of the private economy. Steve Forbes, writing for his magazine, recently went so far as to compare Obama's economic policies to those of Juan Peron's Argentina.
The charges and accusations have been so absurd, so beyond the pale, that conservative politics and criticism has seemingly degenerated into a freak show. The problem is that where there are freaks, you can be certain our national media will follow.
Always one for sensationalism rather than substance, each and every charge hurled by the reactionary right-wing makes it into the corporate media cycle. That these criticisms are usually ludicrous and often wholly baseless doesn't seem to matter. Rush Limbaugh could claim Obama had three heads--rest assured mainstream media would trumpet his claim and have on talking heads to debate the number of heads the President has, and how this affects beltway politics.
Entertaining these claims not only reduces serious journalism to the level of the National Enquirer, as Dionne points out it stifles and obscures real substantive discussion regarding the Obama administration's policy decisions. Namely he points out that while the media is fixated on the freak show, and in turn forces Americans to gawk at the bizarre GOP circus, they ignore criticisms such as those leveled by progressives at a recent gathering: While the right wing's rants get wall-to-wall airtime, you almost never hear from the sort of progressive members of Congress who were on an America's Future panel on Tuesday. Reps. Jared Polis of Colorado, Donna Edwards of Maryland and Raul Grijalva of Arizona....why are their voices muffled when they raise legitimate concerns, while Limbaugh's rants get amplified? Isn't Afghanistan a more important issue to debate than a single comment by Judge Sonia Sotomayor about the relative wisdom of Latinas?
There is also more at work here. By narrowing the discussion over President Obama's policies to fanatical critics like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, media outlets are giving Americans a false choice--either side with the moderate, liberal-leaning but centrist White House administration, or join the shouting chorus at the freak show. The voices of those in the progressive camp, who offer both praise and criticism of policies that range from the escalation of the Afghan war to health care, are left mute. Ironically this benefits no one more than the Obama administration, who can make their moderate centrism look progressive--especially when even the slightest move to the left is met with screams of socialism. No wonder many Democratic strategists welcome the GOP freakouts. Perhaps it's about time all of us--from the corporate media machine to the Democratic establishment to everyday progressives--stopped giving so much airtime, blog time and print space to the circus performers of the right-wing, and realize there are more legitimate voices that have yet to be heard.
E.J. Dionne's full article here.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Tough Love for Obama
From TheNation.com
Representative Donna Edwards provides a look into the Congressional Progressive Caucus and urges progressives to speak up and challenge the Obama presidency to deliver innovative and powerful legislation.
For moreNation videos check out their YouTube channel.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Loose Change ?
No, that title has nothing to do with debunked conspiracy theories that should have been retired five years ago. Rather it's my description for this bizarre week that has pitted groups like the ACLU against the Obama administration. Change we can believe in has become nuanced, and much more loosely defined. A glance at the blogosphere also indicates those united in support last Nov. 4th are now finding themselves in dispute, as many are forced to react to moves by the new president that don't exactly gibe with the campaign trail. The more extreme of his detractors accuse him of betraying his promises. His more extreme defenders put words like "pragmatic" on lofty pedestals. And many struggle to figure out where they stand on events that certainly require addressing.
More after the fold...
Monday The Obama administration threatened to cut off intelligence-sharing if British courts reveal the details of how the Bush administration tortured British-Ethiopian resident Binyam Mohamed.
Tuesday Gen. Stanley McChyrstal was promoted to top military official in Afghanistan, even after his known involvement in some of the worst abuses of the Bush era, including the Pat-Tillman cover-up.
Wednesday In a reversal, President Obama indicated he would seek to conceal photos showing widespread detainee torture and abuse--all in the face of recent court rulings in favor of their disclosure.
Friday Backtracking on previous criticism of military tribunals, President Obama released a statement indicating he would keep the system intact with slight modifications in order to try Guantanamo detainees.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
The Handshake
Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, right, shakes hands and speaks with President Barack Obama at the 5th Summit of the Americas in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, Friday, April 17, 2009.
It's a baby-step in diplomatic relations. But compared to the last guy in the White House eagerly backing--if not helping engineer--a coup attempt against the democratically elected leader of Venezuela, this is a decided improvement. I bet this time, Chavez wasn't smelling sulfur and brimstone.
HOPE I can believe in.
More after the fold...
As reported in the AP:
Obama, Chavez shake hands at Americas Summit
Fri Apr 17
PORT-OF-SPAIN, Trinidad – Presidents Barack Obama and Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's socialist leader, met Friday and shook hands on the sidelines of a summit of their hemisphere's democracies.
Obama walked across a hotel meeting room to meet Chavez for the first time, said a senior U.S. administration official who witnessed it and spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the details of the event. The official said Obama initiated the encounter.
Chavez has been a fierce critic of the United States during President George W. Bush's tenure.
"It was very, very short," the official said of Friday's meeting. "The president shook his hand, smiled and then went back to his position in the line."
The encounter comes as Obama softens U.S. policy against Cuba, a Chavez ally.
Asked later about the meeting, Obama elicited laughter from reporters with a brief response: "I said, 'Como estas?'"
That's the familiar form of Spanish for "How are you?"
Chavez was more forthcoming with reporters.
"We shook each other's hands like gentlemen, and it was predictable this would happen," Chavez said.
"We don't have any complexes that would prevent us from extending our hands to each other. I'm grateful for his gesture."
Photos released by the Venezuelan government show the two smiling and Obama touching Chavez on the shoulder. Other photos show them with clenched hands in the room next to the main summit ballroom while the heads of state and government were waiting in line to enter the opening ceremony.
The Venezuelan presidency also said Obama initiated the handshake and quoted Chavez as telling Obama he hopes for better relations between their nations.
Chavez told reporters he had a simple message in English for Obama: "I want to be your friend."
Obama's comments were limited to saying that he wanted to introduce himself to Chavez, the U.S. official said. The Obama official would not comment on what Chavez told the U.S. president.
But when a reporter asked if the Venezuelan account of what happened was accurate, the Obama official said: "I wouldn't dispute that."
As recently as last week, Chavez expressed a desire to "reset" relations with Washington.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
You're Fired!"
Nothing like it has ever happened. The President of the United States, the elected representative of the people, has just told the head of General Motors -- a company that's spent more years at #1 on the Fortune 500 list than anyone else -- "You're fired!
Noted documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, quoted above, ponders the meaning behind President Barack Obama's "firing" of GM boss Rick Wagoner. Full article re-posted below.
Wednesday, April 1st, 2009
"We the People" to "King of the World": "YOU'RE FIRED!" ...a letter from Michael Moore
Friends,
Nothing like it has ever happened. The President of the United States, the elected representative of the people, has just told the head of General Motors -- a company that's spent more years at #1 on the Fortune 500 list than anyone else -- "You're fired!"
I simply can't believe it. This stunning, unprecedented action has left me speechless for the past two days. I keep saying, "Did Obama really fire the chairman of General Motors? The wealthiest and most powerful corporation of the 20th century? Can he do that? Really? Well, damn! What else can he do?!"
This bold move has sent the heads of corporate America spinning and spewing pea soup. Obama has issued this edict: The government of, by, and for the people is in charge here, not big business. John McCain got it. On the floor of the Senate he asked, "What does this signal send to other corporations and financial institutions about whether the federal government will fire them as well?" Senator Bob Corker said it "should send a chill through all Americans who believe in free enterprise." The stock market plunged as the masters of the universe asked themselves, "Am I next?" And they whispered to each other, "What are we going to do about this Obama?"
Not much, fellows. He has the massive will of the American people behind him -- and he has been granted permission by us to do what he sees fit. If you liked this week's all-net 3-pointer, stay tuned.
I write this letter to you in memory of the hundreds of thousands of workers over the past 25+ years who have been tossed into the trash heap by General Motors. Many saw their lives ruined for good. They turned to alcohol or drugs, their marriages fell apart, some took their own lives. Most moved on, moved out, moved over, moved away. They ended up working two jobs for half the pay they were getting at GM. And they cursed the CEO of GM for bringing ruin to their lives.
Not one of them ever thought that one day they would witness the CEO receive the same treatment. Of course Chairman Wagoner will not have to sign up for food stamps or be evicted from his home or tell his kids they'll be going to the community college, not the university. Instead, he will get a $23 million golden parachute. But the slip in his hands is still pink, just like the hundreds of thousands that others received -- except his was issued by us, via the Obama-man. Here's the door, buster. See ya. Don't wanna be ya.
I began my day today in Washington, D.C. I went to the U.S. Senate and got into their Finance Committee's hearing on the Wall Street bailout. The overseers wanted to know how the banks spent the money. And many of these banks won't tell them. They've taken trillions and nobody knows where the money went. It certainly didn't go to create jobs, relieve mortgage holders, or free up loans that people need. It was so shocking to listen to this, I had to leave before it was over. But it gave me an idea for the movie I was shooting.
Later, I stopped by the National Archives to stand in line to see the original copy of our Constitution. I thought about how twenty years ago this month I was just down the street finishing my first film, a personal plea to warn the nation about GM and the deadly economy it ruled. On that March day in 1989 I was broke, having collected the last of my unemployment checks, relying on help from my friends (Bob and Siri would take me out to dinner and always pick up the check, the assistant manager at the movie theater would sneak me in so I could watch an occasional movie, Laurie and Jack bought an old Steenbeck (editing) machine for me, John Richard would slip me an unused plane ticket so I could go home for Christmas, Rod would do anything for me and drive to Flint whenever I needed something for the film). My late mother (she would've turned 88 tomorrow if she were still with us) and my GM autoworker dad told me in the kitchen they wanted to help and handed me a check for an astounding thousand dollars. I didn't know they even had a thousand dollars. I refused it, they insisted I take it -- "No!" -- and then, in that parental voice, told me I was to cash it so I could finish my movie. I did. And I did.
So on that March day in 1989, as I was driving down Pennsylvania Avenue, my 9-year-old car just died. I coasted over to the curb, put my head down on the steering wheel and started to cry. I had no money to take it in to be repaired, and I certainly had nothing to pay the tow truck driver. So I got out, screwed the license plates off so I wouldn't be fined, turned my back and just left it there for good. I looked over at the building next to me. It said "National Archives." What better place to donate my dead car, I thought, as I walked the rest of the way home.
Though it wasn't easy for me, I still never had to suffer what so many of my friends and neighbors went through, thanks to General Motors and an economic system rigged against them. I wonder what they must have all thought when they woke up this Monday morning to read in the Detroit News or the Detroit Free Press the headlines that Obama had fired the CEO of GM. Oh -- wait a minute. They couldn't read that. There was no Free Press or News. Monday was the day that both papers ended home delivery. It was canceled (as it will be for four days every week) because the daily newspapers, like General Motors, like Detroit, are broke.
I await the President's next superhero move.
Yours,
Michael Moore
(Go State!)
P.S. Please know that it has not been lost on any of us from the Rust Belt how our corporate bigwigs were treated (remember, the auto companies wanted a loan, not a handout) compared to how the titans of Wall Street got trillions of free cash, lunch at the White House and a photo op with the Prez. Trust me, we get it. And, if there is a God in heaven, the thieves of Wall Street will soon pay. Also... the sight of our president having to promise that he would back every GM warranty and give consumers a bonus if they trade in their old Grand Am for a hybrid, was alternately sad, hilarious, and just plain weird. This is what it's come to: the Commander in Chief of the Free World is now Mr. Goodwrench. Jeesh.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Obama & Iran- Respectful Diplomacy ?
President Obama's taped speech to be broadcast to the Iranian people was a clear departure not only from the Bush administration's "Axis of Evil" designation, but from a dismal US foreign policy towards that nation in some two decades.
For the US, the souring of relations with Iran began with the hostage crisis of the 1970s--which would partially help usher in the Reagan Era, and usher out President Jimmy Carter--and Iranian support for nationalist groups (designated terrorists) which threaten US interests, like Hezbollah. But for Iranians, the beginning of those bad relations was at least twenty-five years earlier, when in 1954 the US CIA, along with British interests, enginerred the overthrow of the popular government of Premier Mohammed Mossaddeq. It was Iran's last democratically elected leadership, to be followed by a very unpopular western puppet in the form of the Shah, and later a socially repressive religious orthodoxy. During this time the US supported Iran's enemey Saddam Hussein (politically and militarily) in an aggressive war that would kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians, in the controversial 1988 Operation Praying Mantis, and have imposed sanctions against the existing regime. And though Iran would show profound sympathy for the US in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and provide key aid in the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan, their blatant overtures of diplomacy were repeatedly rebuffed.
Obama's speech is far from anything resembling an apology for the US role in a past tumultuous relationship. Nor should it seen as a backing away from any possible sanction or military attack on Iran over an alleged nuclear program. The administration still loudly refers to an "Iranian Threat" that somehow looms over the world. Yet, it is at least a step away from the brash and thinly veiled hostility of past addresses. There are no calls here to overthrow the current rulers of Iran (something that should be left to the Iranian people to do, if that is what they want), nor the normal arrogance inherent of a "Johnny-come-lately" nation lecturing a country and people that can claim links to the ancient world. And in that, we can at least see a glimmer of hope.
Speech:
THE PRESIDENT: Today I want to extend my very best wishes to all who are celebrating Nowruz around the world.
This holiday is both an ancient ritual and a moment of renewal, and I hope that you enjoy this special time of year with friends and family.
In particular, I would like to speak directly to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nowruz is just one part of your great and celebrated culture. Over many centuries your art, your music, literature and innovation have made the world a better and more beautiful place.
Here in the United States our own communities have been enhanced by the contributions of Iranian Americans. We know that you are a great civilization, and your accomplishments have earned the respect of the United States and the world.
For nearly three decades relations between our nations have been strained. But at this holiday we are reminded of the common humanity that binds us together. Indeed, you will be celebrating your New Year in much the same way that we Americans mark our holidays -- by gathering with friends and family, exchanging gifts and stories, and looking to the future with a renewed sense of hope.
Within these celebrations lies the promise of a new day, the promise of opportunity for our children, security for our families, progress for our communities, and peace between nations. Those are shared hopes, those are common dreams.
So in this season of new beginnings I would like to speak clearly to Iran's leaders. We have serious differences that have grown over time. My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community. This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.
You, too, have a choice. The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right -- but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create.
So on the occasion of your New Year, I want you, the people and leaders of Iran, to understand the future that we seek. It's a future with renewed exchanges among our people, and greater opportunities for partnership and commerce. It's a future where the old divisions are overcome, where you and all of your neighbors and the wider world can live in greater security and greater peace.
I know that this won't be reached easily. There are those who insist that we be defined by our differences. But let us remember the words that were written by the poet Saadi, so many years ago: "The children of Adam are limbs to each other, having been created of one essence."
With the coming of a new season, we're reminded of this precious humanity that we all share. And we can once again call upon this spirit as we seek the promise of a new beginning.
Thank you, and Eid-eh Shoma Mobarak.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Unusual Suspect
Crazy sure is funny, until someone gets hurt. For now, we can just laugh at the absurdity. And hope no one dares take it seriously.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Obama Strikes Back! (and it's about time)
Finally! After nearly two weeks of letting the GOP bash the Obama administration's intended stimulus plan, the head guy in charge is finally firing back. Seeming lost in some feel-good fog of "bipartisanship," the White House has allowed obstructionist Republicans to whittle away important portions of the package, all the while bashing it as "pork" or "wasteful spending." They even managed to twist the administration's arm and insert a series of useless tax cuts. And what did the the President get back in return? Not a single Republican in the House voted for the bill.
Realizing that a party that allows Rush Limbaugh to dictate it's agenda can't be trusted to deal with economic matters seriously, Obama yesterday finally hit back at his critics--calling out their hypocrisy and chiding them for what he termed "ideological blockage." My favorite line:
Now, you have some people, very sincere, who philosophically just think the government has no business interfering in the marketplace. And in fact there are several who've suggested that FDR was wrong to intervene back in the New Deal. They're fighting battles that I thought were resolved a pretty long time ago.
Pure gold. Excerpts of the news conference after the fold.
Transcript: President Obama's Feb. 9 press conference, released by the White House
Courtesy, CBS News
OBAMA: Good evening, everybody. Please be seated.
Before I take your questions tonight, I'd like to speak briefly about the state of our economy and why I believe we need to put this recovery plan in motion as soon as possible.
I took a trip to Elkhart, Indiana today. Elkhart is a place that has lost jobs faster than anywhere else in America. In one year, the unemployment rate went from 4.7 percent to 15.3 percent. Companies that have sustained this community for years are shedding jobs at an alarming speed, and the people who've lost them have no idea what to do or who to turn to. They can't pay their bills and they've stopped spending money. And because they've stopped spending money, more businesses have been forced to lay off more workers. In fact, local TV stations have started running public service announcements that tell people where to find food banks, even as the food banks don't have enough to meet the demand.
As we speak, similar scenes are playing out in cities and towns across America. Last Monday more than a thousand men and women stood in line for 35 firefighter jobs in Miami. Last month our economy lost 598,000 jobs, which is nearly the equivalent of losing every single job in the state of Maine. And if there's anyone out there who still doesn't believe this constitutes a full-blown crisis, I suggest speaking to one of the millions of Americans whose lives have been turned upside down because they don't know where their next paycheck is coming from.
And that is why the single most important part of this Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is the fact that it will save or create up to 4 million jobs -- because that's what America needs most right now.
It is absolutely true that we can't depend on government alone to create jobs or economic growth. That is and must be the role of the private sector. But at this particular moment, with the private sector so weakened by this recession, the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life. It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money which leads to even more layoffs. And breaking that cycle is exactly what the plan that's moving through Congress is designed to do.
When passed, this plan will ensure that Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own can receive greater unemployment benefits and continue their health care coverage. We'll also provide a $2,500 tax credit to folks who are struggling to pay the costs of their college tuition, and $1,000 worth of badly needed tax relief to working and middle class families. These steps will put more money in the pockets of those Americans who are most likely to spend it, and that will help break the cycle and get our economy moving.
But as we've learned very clearly and conclusively over the last eight years, tax cuts alone can't solve all of our economic problems -- especially tax cuts that are targeted to the wealthiest few Americans. We have tried that strategy time and time again, and it's only helped lead us to the crisis we face right now.
And that's why we have come together around a plan that combines hundreds of billions in tax cuts for the middle class with direct investment in areas like health care, energy, education, and infrastructure -- investments that will save jobs, create new jobs and new businesses, and help our economy grow again, now and in the future.
More than 90 percent of the jobs created by this plan will be in the private sector. They're not going to be make-work jobs, but jobs doing the work that America desperately needs done, jobs rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, repairing our dangerously deficient dams and levees so that we don't face another Katrina. They'll be jobs building the wind turbines and solar panels and fuel-efficient cars that will lower our dependence on foreign oil, and modernizing our costly health care system that will save us billions of dollars and countless lives.
They'll be jobs creating the 21st century classrooms, libraries, and labs for millions of children across America. And they'll be the jobs of firefighters and teachers and police officers that would otherwise be eliminated if we do not provide states with some relief.
After many weeks of debate and discussion, the plan that ultimately emerges from Congress must be big enough and bold enough to meet the size of the economic challenges that we face right now. It's a plan that is already supported by businesses representing almost every industry in America; by both the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO. It contains input, ideas, and compromises from both Democrats and Republicans. It also contains an unprecedented level of transparency and accountability, so that every American will be able to go online and see where and how we're spending every dime. What it does not contain, however, is a single pet project, not a single earmark, and it has been stripped of the projects members of both parties found most objectionable.
Now, despite all of this, the plan is not perfect. No plan is. I can't tell you for sure that everything in this plan will work exactly as we hope, but I can tell you with complete confidence that a failure to act will only deepen this crisis as well as the pain felt by millions of Americans. My administration inherited a deficit of over $1 trillion, but because we also inherited the most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression, doing a little or nothing at all will result in even greater deficits, even greater job loss, even greater loss of income, and even greater loss of confidence. Those are deficits that could turn a crisis into a catastrophe. And I refuse to let that happen. As long as I hold this office, I will do whatever it takes to put this economy back on track and put this country back to work.
I want to thank the members of Congress who've worked so hard to move this plan forward. But I also want to urge all members of Congress to act without delay in the coming week to resolve their differences and pass this plan.
We find ourselves in a rare moment where the citizens of our country and all countries are watching and waiting for us to lead. It's a responsibility that this generation did not ask for, but one that we must accept for the future and our children and our grandchildren. And the strongest democracies flourish from frequent and lively debate, but they endure when people of every background and belief find a way to set aside smaller differences in service of a greater purpose.
That's the test facing the United States of America in this winter of our hardship. And it is our duty as leaders and citizens to stay true to that purpose in the weeks and months ahead. After a day of speaking with and listening to the fundamentally decent men and women who call this nation home, I have full faith and confidence that we can do it. But we're going to have to work together. That's what I intend to promote in the weeks and days ahead.
Friday, January 30, 2009
The Party of Limbaugh
Not one to waste time on conservative mouthpeices. So last week, when GOP shockjock posing as an intellectual Rush Limbaugh proclaimed to his gleeful dittoheads "I hope Obama fails," I ignored it. But the story, which made news headlines for its sheer absurdity, took an even more bizarre turn with the entrance of Republican Congressman Phil Gingrey of Georgia. Gingrey, reacting to criticism of the GOP Congress by Limbaugh, told the radiohost to back off.
More after the fold...“I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don’t have to try to do what’s best for your people and your party. You know you’re just on these talk shows and you’re living well and plus you stir up a bit of controversy and gin the base and that sort of that thing. But when it comes to true leadership, not that these people couldn’t be or wouldn’t be good leaders, they’re not in that position of John Boehner or Mitch McConnell."
Disagree with the GOP or not, many applauded Gingrey for having the backbone to stand up to Limbaugh. Alas, his fortitude was not to last. Within 24 hours, Gingrey was issuing a stated apology--to Rush Limbaugh!"“I regret and apologize for the fact that my comments have offended and upset my fellow conservatives—that was not my intent. I am also sorry to see that my comments in defense of our Republican Leadership read much harsher than they actually were intended, but I recognize it is my responsibility to clarify my own comments.”
Gingrey went as far as to appear on Rush Limbaugh's show, "hemming and hawing" before the radio host in the best "white steppin' fetchit" role I've ever heard. So to recap, a sitting Georgian elected member of Congress, rather than defending the President of the United States, has decided it's more important to beg for forgiveness from an entertainer.
The end of the GOP is nigh... .
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The Bush Era Remembered
In her article "Drowning our Sorrows and Lifting a Glass," the mad law professor Patricia Williams recounted the many surreal yet tragically factual elements of the outgoing Bush administration. It makes even a cynic like me take pause, and realise that even in an imperfect Obama, we've made some serious change.
Some of these are listed here, with links. Will add as my repressed memory allows me access. So in case any of you forgot the sheer horror of it all, here's what may finally be over.
*Pax Americana and the aspiration to consolidate a global American empire.
*The Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive warfare.
*Hurricane Katrina and "heckuva job, Brownie."
*The explicit rejection of the Geneva Conventions.
*John Yoo's and Alberto Gonzales's redefinition of torture.
*Paul Wolfowitz as head of the World Bank subsidizing his girlfriend.
*Ahmad Chalabi.
*The FCC allowing greater consolidation of media.
*The outing of Valerie Plame.
*The manipulations asserting that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
*The addled handling of Harriet Miers's nomination to the Supreme Court.
More below...
*Opposition to stem cell research.
*The looting of the National Museum of Iraq, and the burning of Baghdad's National Library.
*Donald Rumsfeld's remarks that rioting in Iraq was the sign of a liberated people and that Iraq was no more violent than some American cities.
*Stacking the Civil Rights Commission with conservatives, like Abigail Thernstrom, who want to overturn sections of the Voting Rights Act.
*The shooting death of Italian intelligence officer Nicola Calipari and injury of journalist Giuliana Sgrena at the hands of American soldiers.
*The appointment of ultraconservatives John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.
*Cheney filling his friend with birdshot.
*The USA Patriot Act.
*Doing away with habeas corpus.
*The National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping of citizens' phone calls and e-mails.
*The notion of an unchecked, unaccountable "unitary executive."
*The failure to keep official numbers of dead Iraqi civilians.
*The forbidding of photographs, or even visibility, of American military dead.
*The multilayered, high-level lying about how football hero Pat Tillman was killed in Afghanistan.
*Halliburton taking kickbacks from Kuwaiti oil suppliers.
*Paul Bremer dispensing billions of dollars for contracts in Iraq, which disappeared, never to be accounted for or recovered.
*Blackwater mercenaries accused of murdering Iraqi civilians.
*"Military tribunals" established outside the military justice system, with no due process or right to an attorney or to cross-examination or even to know the charges.
*The silly disparagement of the national anthem sung in Spanish.
*Bush talking directly to God.
*Abu Ghraib.
*Profiling Arab, Muslim and Latino immigrants.
*Guantánamo.
*Extraordinary rendition.
*Lousy veterans' benefits.
*Lousy veterans' hospitals.
*The failure to provide soldiers with reinforced armored vehicles ("You go to war with the army you have," explained Rumsfeld).
*The refusal to recognize post-traumatic stress disorder as a legitimate condition.
*Monica Goodling's political litmus tests in hiring for nonpolitical posts in the Justice Department.
*Expelling Helen Thomas from the White House press room and putting in fake reporter "Jeff Gannon" to throw adoring softball questions.
*John Ashcroft's draping of bare-breasted sculptures in the Justice Department.
*His subpoenas of more than 2,500 records of abortions performed at public hospitals.
*Gonzales firing US Attorneys around the country for political reasons.
*Oh, and did I forget the economy?
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Obama- History in Photos
A photographic look at the Obama Inauguration, in the US and throughout the world--courtesy of The Boston Globe.
See them all below:
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Obama, Pakistan & Missile-Strike Diplomacy
Yesterday, buried beneath news of shoe-throwing Iraqi journalists and Illinois political shenanigans, the AP displayed what has become an all too-familiar headline: US Missile Strike Suspected in 2 Deaths. Whether its missile strikes or military commandos, the casual invasion of Pakistani territory to fight America's "War on Terror" has become routinely commonplace. As the ritual goes, the US denies involvement but at the same time hails the killing of some key Taliban leader or international terrorist; the Pakistani government lodges a formal complaint about its sovereingty, yet its thought elements in its intelligence service (ISI) are working with the CIA; and (what is disputed by no one) civilian casualities and the destruction of civilian infrastructure takes place amidst whatever "victories" are won. Such collateral damage in what might be called the "Israeli counter-terrorism approach" is accepted as normal.
In this recent event, the AP notes the following:
The latest suspected U.S. strike set a house on fire, said Ajab Khan, a village resident who went to the scene. He said he saw two bodies brought out and three wounded people taken away in a vehicle. Suspected Taliban militants surrounded the house, Khan said — a common occurrence after such strikes.
Since August, there have been well over 30 of these attacks. And even if one or two actual "suspected taliban militants" are killed, so are regular people in these regions--who now live in constant terror of death from the skies at any moment. No independent account has been made of just who is killed by these strikes, or how many. In mid Nov. a strike killed some 13 people. The US, in their non-denial type denial, claims they were militants. The local people say many were just civilians. The truth? Who can say for certain. That's the problem with these types of policies. And sometimes, they go wrong--as in early June when a missile strike killed some 11 Pakistani soldiers.
To be certain, there is a certain grey area between sovereignty and dealing with non-state actors. However, despite such thorny technical aspects of international law, these continued incursions have hardly won any hearts and minds in the area, and some analysts have blamed such a ham-fisted approach for driving many into the growing Taliban insurgency. Others warn that each such act on the part of the US only destabilizes Pakistan's already weak government, a dangerous situation for a fledgeling nuclear power, who looks impotent as its supposed US ally continuously invades and bombs its population. Reacting to popular resentment at home, in Sept. Pakistani troops actually opened fire on approaching US commandos. The US forces turned back, lest some embarrassing international incident occur between these "allies."
Of course, at first glance, many may shake their heads and point yet again to another screw-up of the Bush administration. The only problem is, the recent president-elect signed up for this controversial policy as well.
As far back as early Aug 2007, Obama stated that he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act," Obama stated, "we will." Just shortly after this statement, the US missile attacks and commando raids into Pakistan began in earnest.
Of course, no one is suggesting any direct link to Obama's statement and the Bush White House's foreign policy decisions. But it did place the then presidential candidate, looking to sound tough on terror, into a position where he could never condemn the attacks. While not condoning them either, he nevertheless stuck by his earlier assertion that he'd do somewhat the same thing. The only difference to be teased out was that he was talking specifically about "high-value terrorist targets," while the Bush administration seems to be going after anyone they get a scent on. Though, in the eyes of many in Pakistan who were shaken by Obama's statement, not certain such delicate differences amount to a great deal. It's uncertain what the new administration's stance will be towards Pakistan, and whether this missile-strike diplomacy will continue. Hopefully "change we can believe in" includes a more sensible approach.
Related article below:
Obama's Pakistan Problem: "No We Can't!"
Whether ordained by God, the crusade against communism or the Global War on Terror, many Americans believe we have a mandate to police the world, hold dominion over its supply of oil and natural gas and lead the way in whatever way we happen to be leading at the time. John F. Kennedy and his New Frontiersmen believed all this as they escalated their terrible war of choice in Southeast Asia. George W. Bush and his neoincompetents still believe they pursued America's destiny in Iraq. And, from their writing and speeches, Barack Obama and his national security team believe no less strongly in America's calling to put the world right.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Obama Day One
Before my innate cynicism kicks in (as I'm sure it will), still going to bask in the glow of the good things about having a Democrat--and most specifically this Democrat--in the White House. Today, the Washington Post pointed to a series of things that even the most jaded progressive has to admit are steps in the right direction:
Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team.
Now that's some hope I can believe in.
The entire article here.
More snippets below the fold.
From the Nov. 9, 2008 edition of the Washington Post:
Obama himself has signaled, for example, that he intends to reverse Bush's controversial limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, a decision that scientists say has restrained research into some of the most promising avenues for defeating a wide array of diseases, such as Parkinson's.
The new president is also expected to lift a so-called global gag rule barring international family planning groups that receive U.S. aid from counseling women about the availability of abortion, even in countries where the procedure is legal, said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, he rescinded the Reagan-era regulation, known as the Mexico City policy, but Bush reimposed it.
The president-elect has said, for example, that he intends to quickly reverse the Bush administration's decision last December to deny California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. "Effectively tackling global warming demands bold and innovative solutions, and given the failure of this administration to act, California should be allowed to pioneer," Obama said in January.
