Is Buying Green a Moral Offset?

Is Buying Green a Moral Offset?:

While consumers can restore their eco-ego through carbon offset programs after buying an SUV or plane ticket, new research suggests that buying green products functions as a type of 'moral offset.'

Researchers at the University of Toronto questioned the assumption that the 'green consumer' is also socially responsible and a humanitarian. The study found that making environmentally responsible consumer choices leads people to make unethical decisions (or at least not as nice ones) later on:

'the halo associated with green consumerism has to be taken with reservations. While mere exposure to green products can have a positive societal effect by inducing pro-social and ethical acts, purchasing green products may license indulgence in self-interested and unethical behaviors.'

The researchers conducted three experiments in which students were asked to purchase or evaluate green products, or buy conventional ones, and then participate in an 'unrelated' task. In each experiment, students who didn't buy green products acted more altruistically and honestly in the second task than those who did. In the words of the researchers, 'people act less altruistically and are more likely to cheat and steal after purchasing green products as opposed to conventional products.' However, if you consider that 98 percent of so-called 'green products' are based on misleading claims, then that moral high ground is even shakier.

So are Prius drivers and folks who drink organic, fairly traded coffee not as nice as those driving a conventional sedan and drinking Starbucks? Seems like a question to ask the Girl Scouts and Salvation Army: Are people more generous in front of Safeway or Whole Foods?

(Via MoJo Blogs and Articles.)

Appeals Court Overturns Campaign Finance Rules

Appeals Court Overturns Campaign Finance Rules: "Appeals court says limits on campaign spending by nonprofit groups violate right to free speech"

...Let's hope this isn't an omen of what's to come on the Citizens United case. It does pose the question of how is a non-profit different from a business. My gut tells me that it is. Maybe non-profits should be regulated.

Solar Power's Drinking Problem

Solar Power's Drinking Problem:

When basking in the warm moral glow of solar power, it's good to remember one of Barry Commoner's four laws of ecology. Commoner is one of the founders of the environmental movement -- although, for some reason, he's never received the credit he deserves.

The Commoner Law to keep in mind is: There is no such thing as a free lunch.

With solar power, I'd just expand Commoner's language to ensure that it includes the drinks.

As reporter Stephanie Tavares points out in today's Las Vegas Sun, 'Solar photovoltaic developers say their plants don't use much water, but 'much' is relative.'

Especially in the desert, where, as Tavares points out, most solar power plants are being built.

She's written a great expose, well worth the read, particularly because of Tavares' admirable legwork in putting real numbers on words like 'much.'

I should point out that Tavares isn't trashing solar. She just makes a compelling case for considering all the environmental impacts of generating energy, no matter what the source.

You may also want to check out a piece in today's Phoenix Sun (my other writing vehicle), where we've got a story about the 25 largest photovoltaic plants on Earth. Guess how many are in the US? If you guessed more than 0, try a smaller number.

---------

Osha Gray Davidson is a contributing blogger at Mother Jones and publisher of The Phoenix Sun, an online news service reporting on solar energy. He tweets @thephoenixsun.

"

(Via MoJo Blogs and Articles.)

Thanks for shutting down business in PGH for 3 days, G20

I thought you were all pro-business, and stuff?

Street Report From the G20

Street Report From the G20: " What no terrorist could do to us, our own leaders did.

Out of fear of the possibility of a terrorist attack, authorities militarize our towns, scare our people away, stop daily life and quash our constitutional rights.The G20 in Pittsburgh showed us how pitifully fearful our leaders have become.

The USA really showed those terrorists didn't we?

Your Electronic Vote in the 2010 Election Has Just Been Bought

Your Electronic Vote in the 2010 Election Has Just Been Bought:

From the article:

In short, the ES&S purchase of Diebold's voting machine operation is merely the tip of a toxic iceberg. Voiding the merger will do nothing to solve the REAL problem, which is an electronic-based system of voter registration and ballot counting that is potentially controlled by private corporations and contractors whose agenda is to make large profits and protect the system that guarantees them.

Although elections based on universal automatic registration and hand-counted paper ballots are not foolproof, they constitute a start. Stealing an election by stuffing paper ballot boxes at the "retail" level is far more difficult than stealing votes at the "wholesale" level with an electronic flip of a switch.

Marine Won't Face Murder Charge In Detainee Killing

Marine Won't Face Murder Charge In Detainee Killing:

The government drops a murder charge against Sgt. Jermaine Nelson, who pleaded guilty to dereliction of duty for killing an unarmed Iraqi detainee in 2004. Nelson could have received a maximum sentence of life in prison but now faces up to a year in prison and a dishonorable discharge.

60 Dems in the Senate for Healthcare?

The left is going to be assaulted for anti-democratic moves no matter how it choses to pass healthcare legislation.

There is at least one option infinitely better than reverting to the status quo Massachusetts state legislators decried when Mitt Romney was in a position to appoint the a senator to fill a vacancy created by John Kerry's presidential run. Instead of once again allowing the Mass governor to appoint senators to fill vacancies, let's just get rid of the filibuster. We have the majority votes in the Senate to amend the body's bylaws. Not only would this benefit the dems on the healthcare debate, it would enable them to carry through with their entire agenda for the next 3 years. But even more than that, it will get rid of a remarkably undemocratic process that waylays bills in Compromise City before reaching the President's desk.

No matter which party (rant on the 2-party system another issue entirely) proposes axing the filibuster, they are going to be slammed for it. Some fallout I can see of such a move: the public will actually be worried about whom it elects to the legislative branch, reinvigorating our democracy. Seems like a win-win to me!

Ballot initiatives

I was just thinking about possible misuse of the referendum process, which took me to thinking about the ballot initiative process. Ballot initiatives should be publicly funded to get on the ballot (let's say with a $25/person max contribution). If ballots were only to appear on the ballot if enough money has been raised (e.g., $500,000), this would translate into a minimum number of supporters and would cover the cost of putting the initiative on the ballot. (It saddens me that I need to specify no business contributions...I'm sorry, but companies just aren't people and so they do not have the right to free speech). From there, the ballot should just happen...no huge mudslinging PR campaign. No nothing. It's time for people to be engaged in governance by educating themselves about the issues! One thing that would help with this is if all legal documents were written in simple english! I never want to read another "Whereas" again!

What about the poor, who might not have the disposable time to educate themselves as they try to hold down 2 or more jobs? If I were president, there would be a living wage in place of the woefully inadequate minimum wage. There, problem solved!

Leave of Absence during Ethics Investigations

Washington's Worst: McConnell and 14 Other Corrupt Lawmakers: Beyond just calling out our corrupt representatives, this article provides solutions:

McConnell is one of only three lawmakers on CREW's list who are not currently facing a formal investigation. Which leads to a bigger question posed by annual reports like this: Why do other public servants (police officers, district attorneys, etc.) have to take a leave of absence when they are implicated in ethical violations but lawmakers like Rep. John Murtha can keep passing out the pork for years under the cloud of federal investigation?

The list:

Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.)

Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.)

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.)

Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.)

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.)

Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-Ill.)

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.)

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.)

Rep. John Murtha (D-Penn.)

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.)

Rep. Laura Richardson (D-Calif.)

Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.)

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)

Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska)

(Via MoJo Blogs and Articles.)

VIDEO: David Swanson on Healthcare Reform and Democracy Reform

VIDEO: David Swanson on Healthcare Reform and Democracy Reform: "

Nine more parts to this video, including lively Q and A here.

read more

"

(Via Let's Try Democracy.)

Is destroying the rule of law illegal?

"Eight Years Ago":

From the article:

"For the crimes committed under his administration, George W. Bush should have been impeached. Period, end of file. They should have locked him in jail and thrown away the jail, but they didn't, because the greatest crime he committed isn't technically against the law. Nowhere on the books is any rule, codicil, edict or law that says it is illegal to destroy the rule of law itself. His crimes were too big for the law, so surpassingly damaging that his very presence paralyzed the Constitution itself. He should have been prosecuted for lying America into war, for spying on everyone, for bypassing the FISA court, for robbing the Treasury, for torture, for murder, but he wasn't, and the political cowardice that allowed him to escape into private life is the last, worst stain left in his wake."

Are Ex-Bush Officials Liable For Post-Sept. 11 Acts?

Are Ex-Bush Officials Liable For Post-Sept. 11 Acts?: "

The legal justifications used by Bush administration officials to detain people after the Sept. 11 attacks remain controversial and legally murky. Some former detainees are seeking to hold former officials personally accountable through civil lawsuits, with mixed results.

» E-Mail This'''' » Add to Del.icio.us

"

(Via Top Stories.)

D.C. Council Passage of Gay Marriage Bill All but Assured - washingtonpost.com

D.C. Council Passage of Gay Marriage Bill All but Assured - washingtonpost.com: "Washington Post - By Tim Craig - Sep. 10 (News Report) - The District is poised once again to become the battleground for a divisive social issue as the D.C. Council moves a step closer to legalizing same-sex marriage, an action that could force Congress and White House to take sides in the debate.

After months of buildup and behind-the-scenes lobbying, a bill by David A. Catania, one of two openly gay members of the council, has been drafted and is ready to be introduced in the coming weeks. Catania (I-At Large) expects a final vote before the end of the year. On Thursday, Catania said he had 10 co-sponsors, all but assuring that the measure will be approved by the council. The bill would have to survive congressional review before it could become law.

NewsTrust Rating: 4.5 average (not enough reviews) - See'Review'» - Review It''''''' Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

"

(Via NewsTrust - Politics - Most Recent Stories.)

Should Bush Apologize for Torture?

Should Bush Apologize for Torture?: "

Proving once again that, on the subject of torture, he is America's most important public intellectual (even though he's British), Andrew Sullivan asks former President Bush to atone for the abuses that occured during his presidency.'The editors of The Atlantic, to their great credit, put'Sullivan's 'open letter' on the cover.

It seems obvious that only something of the magnitude of Bush himself publicly apologizing for torture can return torture to what it once was: a non-political issue that's not open for debate. It's surprising that no one's suggested it before. Like a lot of the ideas Sullivan has, it only seems obvious after he's explained it. Anyway, money quote:

The point of this letter, Mr. President, is to beg you to finally take responsibility for this stain on American honor and this burden on a war we must win. It is to plead with you to own what happened under your command, and to reject categorically the phony legalisms, criminal destruction of crucial evidence, and retrospective rationalizations used to pretend that none of this happened. It happened. You once said, 'I'm worried about a culture that says … 'If you’ve got a problem blame somebody else.'' I am asking you to stop blaming others for the consequences of decisions you made.

"

(Via MoJo Blogs and Articles.)

Future of Journalism

Future of Journalism: "Love The Daily Show, HuffPost, All Things Considered, Kevin Drum? We do, too, but much of what you're consuming is built from reporting (read: going to places, talking to people, and digging through documents) done elsewhere. Or as Rachel Maddow said at her MoJo fundraiser in April, "Without the David Corns of the world, there is no show. [MoJo DC bureau chief] David Corn can do his job without me, but I can't do my job without him."

A Party Is Not a Movement

A Party Is Not a Movement: "The difference between parties and movements is simple: Parties are loyal to their own power regardless of policy agenda; movements are loyal to their own policy agenda regardless of which party champions it. This is one of the few enduring political axioms, and it explains why the organizations purporting to lead an American progressive 'movement' have yet to build a real movement, much less a successful one."

"Of course, frustrated progressives might be able to forgive the groups who promised different results, had these post-election failures prompted course corrections.

For example, had the left's preeminent groups responded to Democrats' health care capitulations by immediately announcing campaigns against these Democrats, progressives could feel confident that these groups were back to prioritizing a movement agenda. Likewise, had the big antiwar organizations reacted to Obama's Afghanistan escalation plans with promises of electoral retribution, we would know those organizations were steadfastly loyal to their antiwar brand."

read more

"

(Via Truthout - Opinion.)

Misuse of polls

Here is a perfectly good article from a more-than-perfectly good news source. It is a perfect example, though, of the misquoting of polling numbers. Ms Mencimer writes, "52 percent of Americans now disapprove of President Obama's handling of health care, up from 28 percent in April." I, for one, have become more and more jaded over Obama (and Congress...why are we focusing on Obama; he can't make the laws under the Constitution!) and his handling of healthcare. In other words, since April, I have gone from approving to disapproving. I am one of those 24% that have become disappointed. Polls should never be conducted as agree/disagree, because it hides the fact that much of the disappointment could be because it's not liberal enough!

Health Care Reform As Socialism Meme Dates To Roosevelt: "

If this weekend's big Tea Party rally in DC was any indication, a lot of Americans' believe that Democrats trying to reform health care are secretly plotting a socialist revolution. According to Bloomberg, though, this is nothing new. Health care reform opponents have been stoking fears of socialism during health care debates since at least Franklin Roosevelt's day. The story even digs up a 1961 quote from Ronald Reagan invoking the term—long before he went into politics.

'From here, it’s a short step to all the rest of socialism,’ Reagan, then an actor, warned in a 1961 record sponsored by the American Medical Association after President John F. Kennedy created a commission that laid the foundation for Medicare.

There's a reason reform opponents like to throw around charges of socialism: it works. Bloomberg says:

Once the public associates the word ‘socialism’ with a plan, it’s hard to change the impression... In 1945, when Truman addressed Congress about a national insurance plan, 75 percent of Americans supported the proposal. By 1949, after it was targeted by opponents, only 21 percent did, according to a book by former Democratic Senator Tom Daschle, ‘Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.’

Sadly, history seems to be repeating itself. According to a recent poll, since Republicans and others have been invoking socialism to defeat Democratic reform bills, 52 percent of Americans now disapprove of President Obama's handling of health care, up from 28 percent in April. '

"

(Via MoJo Blogs and Articles.)

Who Has the Power of War?

You have got to read this!

Who Has the Power of War?:

By David Swanson, Voters for Peace

David Swanson is the author of the new book 'Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union' by Seven Stories Press, an immediate bestseller at Amazon.com http://tr.im/xBt3 This article is adapted from 'Daybreak.'

read more

"

(Via Let's Try Democracy.)

Holding NATO Forces Accountable

This article isn't like the usual "structural" arguments I usually post except for one very interesting question it poses: Can NATO troops, not all of whose home countries are signatories to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998), be held accountable if they commit a war crime while on duty in a signatory country? Given who is in NATO and who has signed the treaty, this would raise questions about Turkey and Good Ole USA (we used to be signatories, but guess who rescinded our signature?). I do think it is important to pursue crimes committed by everyone, and I applaud Moreno Ocampo, the prosecutor of the ICC, for going after brutal killings by the Taliban as well.

Prosecutor Looking Into War Crimes In Afghanistan: "

Luis Moreno Ocampo said he is collecting information for the International Criminal Court in The Hague about alleged crimes by both the Taliban and NATO forces. Taliban fighters have been accused of many brutal killings. U.S. forces have been accused of using excessive force and torturing prisoners.

» E-Mail This'''' » Add to Del.icio.us

"

(Via Top Stories.)

The voice of business

Echoing what I said earlier in this blog re: separation of business and state:

Yet the word “corporation” appears nowhere in the constitution or Bill of Rights. “It is scarcely conceivable that the drafters of the constitution had anything resembling corporate entities in mind when they drafted the Bill of Rights,” argue Robert Monks, a veteran corporate-governance activist, and Peter Murray, in a recent essay. All the individuals with a stake in a company have the right to express their views freely, the argument goes, so there is no need for the legal fiction of the corporate person to have such rights.

The voice of business: "Economist - Sep. 09 (News Analysis) - ... the word ‘corporation’ appears nowhere in the constitution or Bill of Rights. ‘It is scarcely conceivable that the drafters of the constitution had anything resembling corporate entities in mind when they drafted the Bill of Rights,’ argue Robert Monks, a veteran corporate-governance activist, and Peter Murray, in a recent essay. All the individuals with a stake in a company have the right to express their views freely, the argument goes, so there is no need for the legal fiction of the corporate person to have such rights.

NewsTrust Rating: Not rated yet - See'Info'» - Review It''''''' Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

"

(Via NewsTrust - Politics - Most Recent Stories.)

Is the U.S. on the Brink of Fascism?

Is the U.S. on the Brink of Fascism?: "

There are dangerous currents running through America's politics and the way we confront them is crucial.

"

(Via AlterNet.org: Rights and Liberties.)

Justice Dept.: Blackwater Contractor Saw Killing Iraqis as 9/11 Payback

Justice Dept.: Blackwater Contractor Saw Killing Iraqis as 9/11 Payback: For sport, they rolled through the streets of Baghdad hurling frozen oranges and water bottles at civilians and nearby vehicles, trying to smash windshields and injure bystanders. Convoying through the city in armored vehicles, the contractors fired their weapons indiscriminately. One member of the Blackwater security team known as Raven 23 regularly bragged about his body count and viewed killing Iraqis as 'payback for 9/11.'

These allegations are contained in court records [PDF] filed on Monday by Justice Department lawyers prosecuting five Blackwater contractors for the September 2007 shooting frenzy in Baghdad's Nisour Square that killed 14 Iraqis and wounded 20 others. Anticipating that lawyers representing the contractors will argue that they were acting in self defense, the prosecution is seeking to introduce evidence that 'several of the defendants had harbored a deep hostility toward Iraqi civilians which they demonstrated in words and deeds.' The charges are similar to those that recently emerged in civil lawsuits against Blackwater, stemming from the Nisour Square episode.

According to the court filing:

In addition to verbal expressions of hatred towards Iraqi civilians, the defendants engaged in unprovoked and aggressive behavior toward unarmed Iraqi civilians in Baghdad. In so doing, the defendants routinely acted in disregard of the use of force policies that they were required to follow as a condition of their employment as Blackwater guards.

...

This evidence tends to establish that the defendants fired at innocent Iraqis not because they actually believed that they were in imminent danger of serious bodily injury and actually believed that they had no alternative to the use of deadly force, but rather that they fired at innocent Iraqi civilians because of their hostility toward Iraqis and their grave indifference to the harm that their actions would cause.

The prosectors maintain that one of the defendants, Nicholas Slatten, believed that by killing Iraqis he was avenging the 9/11 attacks:

During the twelve months proceeding the events charged in the indictment, while assigned to the Raven 23 convoy operating at various locations in the Red Zone in Baghdad, Iraq, defendant Nicholas Slatten made statements that he wanted to kill as many Iraqis as he could as ‘payback for 9/11,’ and he repeatedly boasted about the number of Iraqis he had shot.

Prosecutors also say that in the year leading up to Nisour Square, Slatten 'deliberately fired his weapon to draw out return fire and instigate gun battles.'

These charges follow allegations last month, contained in the anonymous declarations of two former Blackwater employees (here and here) filed in connection with a series of civil law suits, that some of Blackwater's operators enagaged in the wanton murder of Iraqis for 'sport or game' and 'intentionally used excessive and unjustified deadly force, and in some instances used unauthorized weapons, to kill or seriously injure innocent Iraqi civilians.' (Blackwater, which now goes by Xe, has called the allegations 'unsubstantiated' and 'offensive.')

In these declarations, one of the former Blackwater employees says the company's founder, Erik Prince,

intentionally deployed to Iraq certain men who shared his vision of Christian supremacy, knowing and wanting these men to take every available opportunity to murder Iraqis. Many oft hese men used call signs based on the Knights of the Templar, the warriors who fought the Crusades.

This anonmyous ex-employee also alleges:

Mr. Prince operated his companies in a manner that encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life. For example, Mr. Prince's executives would openly speak about going over to Iraq to 'lay Hajiis out on cardboard.' Going to Iraq to shoot and kill Iraqis was viewed as a sport or game. Mr. Prince's employees openly and consistently used racist and derogatory terms for Iraqis and other Arabs, such as 'ragheads' or 'hajiis.'

Allegations of serious misconduct by security contractors—including the indiscriminate murder of Iraqi and Afghan civilians—are nothing new. But with the recently disclosed Animal House antics of ArmorGroup's embassy guards in Kabul, the government's reliance on (and oversight of) contractors has once again become a flashpoint of controversy. Like ArmorGroup's embassy guards, the Blackwater contractors accused or murdering innocent Iraqis in Nisour Square—and engaging in a pattern of aggressive and violent behavior, according to the Justice Department—were under the oversight of the State Department when these abuses allegedly occurred. When the Commission on Wartime Contracting convenes a hearing to examine State's contractor management and oversight next week, expect the agency to face some intense scrutiny not just about how lewd conduct and cruel hazing went on under its nose but about its monitoring of Blackwater's scandal-prone operators as well.

Follow Daniel Schulman on Twitter.

(Via MoJo Blogs and Articles.)

Supreme Court Appointments

Many people are talking about amending the Constitution to limit Supreme Court justices careers. Where are people talking about electing (rather than appointing) justices? This would be one way of a check and balance from the electorate onto the government.

Why the Supreme Court Is a Failed Protector of the People

The brilliant insight of our Founding Fathers was to have three branches of government that were kept in check through separation of powers. There was at least one thing they got very wrong, though. To all those people decrying activist judges, I would like to say the following: The Supreme Court is supposed to protect the people from an overbearing, authoritative government. The way in which the Fathers chose to do this is to draft a set of principles which neither the government nor individuals can violate, which they called the Constitution. But in paying so much deference to this 200-odd year old document, they miss out on the opportunity to be the most powerful force of justice. There are things the Fathers missed, such as the extent to which businesses determine what gets done in government...it just wouldn't have been possible without telephones or airplanes when they were drafting it. That's why I want to see one of our legislators propose a convention to discuss what the Constitution means in today's society and what the role of the courts is.

(This post might have something to do with the impending decision of Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission)

Separation of Business and State

In light of the imminent Supreme Court decision on Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, a free speech case that stands to gut election law, I found myself agitated over the lack of a clause in the Constitution forbidding corporatocracy--we have separation of church and state. Given the incredible foresight of our Founding Fathers, I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't include something like this if they were around today.

Time for new checks and balances!

With all the countries there are that meddle in others' affairs (surely we're not the only ones!), is the problem of mobocracy? Much of my time in college was spent making it a more democratic place. So what happens when you achieve the perfect democracy, in which everyone has one vote, and the votes add up to something terrible: slavery, war, laissez-faire capitalism, etc.? In such a situation, those holding minority opinions would be forced to persuade the majority through the force of logic. Wouldn't that be nice?

And now we get to US politics: where are the provisions in the Constitution for participatory democracy within an election cycle? The recall, you say? That has dismal success on the state level and is not provided for on the federal level in the Constitution. Shouldn't a politician's constituents be able to ouster him or her immediately? And would this actually lead to mob rule? And is that such a bad thing?

An old idea, but a good one: the Virginia Plan

Provisions in the Virginia Plan that we should perhaps revisit:

Federal-level recalls

and Rotation in office

Swanson Strikes Again!

"I'm Finally Hopeful":

I'm a progressive and you're a progressive, but I'm starting to find reason to hope as you're coming off a giant sugar high and plunging into the deep despair of one betrayed and scorned. What gives?

1. I don't expect much of elections, whereas you imagine each time, contrary to all preceding evidence, that they create transformative change. If you expect elections alone to do much, then you're guaranteed to be very excited and then very disappointed, repeatedly, and almost frequently enough for people to catch on.

2. I don't expect much of presidents and don't want presidents to have the power to enact transformative change, whereas you think of presidents as properly making laws. I want Congress to recover the powers to make laws, begin and end wars, raise and spend money, ratify treaties, and so forth. I don't want presidents making laws with signing statements and orders and secret memos, and each subsequent president deciding which of these laws to overturn. I also don't want Congress asking a president what sort of laws to make. I want Congress asking us.

3. When I watched what candidate Obama did and said, I mostly paid attention to what he did and said, whereas you mostly paid attention to what you wished he'd said or what you fantasized that he was secretly thinking. And when he said the right things, I didn't believe him.

4. When President Obama, whose campaign had taken well over 10 times the money from the (un)health industry as most senators, quietly told Congress what to do on healthcare, and when the progressives in Congress self-censored and pre-compromised with Obama before opening the discussion by proposing the weakest reform they would support, I didn't dream about a lone superhero championing the cause of healthcare against a corrupt legislature.

5. You, and all of those joining you in a growing sense of disappointment and despair, are an active participant. Most of you are not going to abandon the cause. You're going to shift gears and push forward. That's how your disappointment becomes my hope, and hopefully your own. While I don't expect elections alone to change everything, I do expect huge changes from active people in between elections.

6. Most struggles for peace and justice have been harder and longer than this one and have advanced in fits and starts, with set-backs and losses along the way. If we actually make major progress toward taking control of our government in Washington, D.C., we will be met by a crackdown on civil rights, all variety of police abuse and intimidation, and more lies than Fox News could spew in a decade. I will take those set backs as encouraging compliments to our progress, because final success never comes without that sort of reaction coming first.

7. We have prevented the widening of the wars beyond where they are. We have prevented a war on Iran. We have turned the American people against war, including in Afghanistan. We have saved Social Security. We have stopped Bush's possible pardoning of his subordinate's crimes. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is for the very first time taking a firm stand on something -- which is far more significant than the weak healthcare measure on which they are taking the firm stand. Our positions are advancing in the polls, and we are building media outlets that will increasingly be able to communicate them.

8. Courts are beginning to turn against the crimes of the Bush-Cheney regime, with recent rulings that threaten the immunity of John Yoo and John Ashcroft, and the Justice Department has opened an investigation into torture that could be expanded into something useful if we work at it.

9. The current Congress will soon have been in session as long as a woman carries a baby, and yet with very little to show for it. People are catching on, and they are realizing how much more effective it is to lobby their congress members than it is to lobby the executive. They are learning the value of independent organizing to take their demands to their representatives, rather than being told by DC-based astroturfers how to ask for only what their congress members want to be asked for.

10. Nobody imagined 10 years ago a world in which we would have presidents and vice presidents confessing to torture on television. Nobody imagines now the radically altered progressive nation we can bring into being 10 years hence. Except us. We imagine it. And therefore we can create it.

11. If 51 senators were to eliminate the filibuster rule, the Congress could pass a progressive agenda within a month, including healthcare and the Employee Free Choice Act. A few months from now, the labor movement is going to realize that. A few years from now it is going to be a labor movement worthy of the name. Then, look out!

12. When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run, there can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun, yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one, for the union makes us strong.

David Swanson is the author of the new book "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union" by Seven Stories Press. You can order it and find out when tour will be in your town: http://davidswanson.org/book

Feingold's constitutional amendment

Feingold's amendment: Feingold (Begich, Durbin, and McCain) is sponsoring a bill that would amend the Constitution to provide that Senate vacancies are always filled by a special election instead of governor's appointment. The LA Times has written an op-ed in opposition to this amendment ("Feinstein Right, Feingold Wrong"), which is interesting to me for two reasons: it further divides me on how I feel about this issue and it raises a very important question that few have talked about, but that would cut across many of the electoral problems we have nowadays--why do we even have states?

'State's rights' has a bad reputation, a hangover from Southern resistance to racial integration, but as long as states exist (and have equal representation in the Senate) they ought to be able to decide whether waiting for an election is worth an empty seat in the Senate.

It falls short, though, of asking the next logical step of 'Why nation(state)s'?

Is using a minotaur torture?

"IS using a minotaur torture?": Well played, Onion, well played.

Russ Feingold's Line Item Veto

Line Item Veto Idea: More lucid ideas from Russ. I would have loved him to get rid of the line item altogether, though.

When Will This White House Learn You Cannot Negotiate With Terrorists?

"When Will This White House Learn...": Baratunde Thurston (aka Jack Turner of jackandjillpolitics.com) argues that those that have used fear as a political weapon domestically in order to derail Obama's not-even-radical agenda are no different than the people we are ostensibly fighting over seas.

When a major Republican figure in the health care negotiations spreads the death panel lie (Grassley), you see him for what he is, realize you’re dealing with a group of psychopaths, and reset the objectives. “Oh, so that’s how it’s gonna be? Cool. Good to know what we’re dealing with. Thanks for your time. We won’t be needing your services anymore. We’re taking our ball and playing somewhere else.” Negotiations require trust and trust assumes that all parties are not completely batshit crazy.

"Uncivil Discourse"

"Uncivil Discourse": Bill Moyers speaks truth to power. I wish all old guys were this cool!

Bill Maher asked me on his show last week if America is still a great nation. I should have said it's the greatest show on earth. Forget what you learned in civics about the Founding Fathers — we're the children of Barnum and Bailey, our founding con men. Their freak show was the forerunner of today's talk radio.

Enjoy!

Working Without Laws

Working Without Laws: Annette Bernhardt, Ruth Milkman, and Nik Theodore expose the brutality that occurs everyday in the American workforce. This is not just the case of a couple of bad eggs...it is what I spend every day fighting as an organizer-in-training for Service Employees International Union (SEIU). I'm sure some day I will write some longer diatribe explaining my views. For now, this article will have do.

Real Tyranny

Real Tyranny: One of my least favorite abuses of power is the government's use of material witness warrants as all-purpose excuses for detaining people when they have no actual evidence of any wrongdoing.' So I'm very pleased to hear that the 9th Circuit Court has not only ruled that such behavior is reprehensible and obviously unconstitutional, but that former Attorney General John Ashcroft can be held personally responsible for it:

Members of the panel, all appointees of Republican presidents, characterized Ashcroft's detention policy as 'repugnant to the Constitution, and a painful reminder of some of the most ignominious chapters of our national history.'

....[Abdullah] Kidd, a former University of Idaho running back...was handcuffed, strip-searched and shuttled among interrogations in Virginia, Oklahoma and Idaho before being released 16 days later and ordered to surrender his passport and live with his wife and in-laws in Nevada.' The arrest led to Kidd being denied a security clearance and losing his job with a government contractor.

....Georgetown Law professor David Cole said that Ashcroft adopted an aggressive 'preventive paradigm' after Sept. 11 designed 'to incapacitate people who government officials thought suspicious but lacked evidence of any wrongdoing. They were locked up and then investigated, rather than the other way around.' Virtually all of the targets had nothing to do with terrorism, Cole said.

....The judges, alluding to the George W. Bush administration, said that although 'some confidently assert that the government has the power to arrest and detain' suspects without evidence of wrongdoing, the panel considered such preemptive detentions 'an engine of political tyranny.'

Yep, boys and girls, that's what the seeds of real political tyranny look like.' Somebody please tell Glenn Beck and the rest of the fever swamp crowd.

"

(Via MoJo Blogs and Articles.)

Ashcroft Can Be Sued In Detention Case, Court Says

Ashcroft Can Be Sued In Detention Case, Court Says: "

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the former attorney general can be held liable for people who were wrongfully detained as material witnesses as part of the Bush administration's post-Sept. 11, 2001, detention policies. Abdullah al-Kidd says his civil rights were violated when he was detained as a material witness for two weeks in 2003.

» E-Mail This'''' » Add to Del.icio.us

"

(Via Top Stories.)

White House Does 180 on Visitor Records!

White House Does 180 on Visitor Records: Remember those Secret Service logs of White House visits by health care and coal industry execs the Obama adminstration was refusing to make public? Or the records of visits by lobbyist Stephen Payne, who was caught on tape peddling access to senior US officials in exchange for a sizable donation to the George W. Bush presidential library, that the Bush administration fought to keep secret? Details of those visits will soon be made public by the Obama White House, which up until now had been following its predecessor's policy of blocking access to the Secret Service logs. But not just that. Going forward, the adminstration is planning to implement an historic transparency policy, releasing the names of most White House visitors, along with other information, on an ongoing base.

This policy shift comes as the Obama administration moved to settle four cases related to public access to White House visitor logs filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. This morning's release from CREW:

CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan praised the White House, stating, ‘The Obama administration has proven its pledge to usher in a new era of government transparency was more than just a campaign promise.' The Bush administration fought tooth and nail to keep secret the identities of those who visited the White House.' In contrast, the Obama administration - by putting visitor records on the White House web site - will have the most open White House in history.' Because visitor records will now be available online, CREW dismissed its lawsuits.’' Sloan continued, ‘Providing public access to visitor records is an important step in restoring transparency and accountability to our government.' CREW is proud to have been part of this historic decision.’

Yesterday’s agreement stems from lawsuits CREW filed after the Bush and later the Obama administration refused to provide White House visitor records in response to CREW’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.' Visitor records are created by the Secret Service as part of its statutory responsibility to protect the president, vice president, their residences, and the White House generally.

In lawsuits for records of visits by Christian conservative leaders and lobbyist Stephen Payne, the Bush administration argued the records were presidential records, not agency records of the Secret Service, and therefore exempt from the FOIA’s mandatory disclosure requirements.' U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth disagreed, ruling twice that the records are subject to the FOIA and not within any of the claimed exemptions.' The government appealed those decisions to the District of Columbia Circuit Court.

After President Obama took office, CREW sought records of visits to the White House by health care and coal executives to determine the degree of their influence on health care and energy legislative proposals.' The government initially refused to turn over these records, but now has agreed to produce them, as well as the Bush era records, as part of the settlement.' In turn, CREW has agreed to dismiss all the pending litigation.

Here's what Obama had to say about his decision to allow access to the visitor logs, in a statement emailed to reporters this morning:

'We will achieve our goal of making this administration the most open and transparent administration in history not only by opening the doors of the White House to more Americans, but by shining a light on the business conducted inside.' Americans have a right to know whose voices are being heard in the policymaking process.'

There will be some exceptions to the administration's new policy, which goes into effect September 15. According to the White House:

Aside from a small group of appointments that cannot be disclosed because of national security imperatives or their necessarily confidential nature (such as a visit by a possible Supreme Court nominee), the record of every visitor who comes to the White House for an appointment, a tour, or to conduct business will be released.'

Any way you look at it, a pretty momentous win for transparency advocates.'

(Via MoJo Blogs and Articles.)

Another Gem from Glenn

Obama continues to squash lawsuits with claims of state secrets:

From the article:

"What was abusive and dangerous about the Bush administration's version of the States Secret privilege -- just as the Obama/Biden campaign pointed out -- was that it was used not (as originally intended) to argue that specific pieces of evidence or documents were secret and therefore shouldn't be allowed in a court case, but instead, to compel dismissal of entire lawsuits in advance based on the claim that any judicial adjudication of even the most illegal secret government programs would harm national security. That is the theory that caused the bulk of the controversy when used by the Bush DOJ -- because it shields entire government programs from any judicial scrutiny -- and it is that exact version of the privilege that the Obama DOJ yesterday expressly advocated (and, by implication, sought to preserve for all Presidents, including Obama)."

Obama and the Tale of the Secret Visitor Logs

Obama refuses to release visitor logs: Yet another instance of more of the same...

Obama dreams up policies even Bush couldn't think of: In this videoclip, Democracy Now and Vince Warren (of the Center for Constitutional Rights) outline Obama's new policy of "preventive detention," which is a sexy way of saying "we are going to lock people up even if they haven't committed a crime." Where are our morals??

Is Obama Really that Different from Bush?

Bush's Third Term?: This story first appeared on the TomDispatch website.

It sounds like the plot for the latest summer horror movie. Imagine, for a moment, that George W. Bush had been allowed a third term as president, had run and had won or stolen it, and that we were all now living (and dying) through it. With the Democrats in control of Congress but Bush still in the Oval Office, the media would certainly be talking endlessly about a mandate for bipartisanship and the importance of taking into account the concerns of Republicans. Can't you just picture it?

There's Dubya now, still rewriting laws via signing statements. Still creating and destroying laws with executive orders. And still violating laws at his whim. Imagine Bush continuing his policy of extraordinary rendition, sending prisoners off to other countries with grim interrogation reputations to be held and tortured. I can even picture him formalizing his policy of preventive detention, sprucing it up with some 'due process' even as he permanently removes habeas corpus from our culture.

The News and Us

The News and Us: Paul Krugman muses about why news outlets tend to cover the politics and horserace aspects of things like healthcare far more than they cover the policy substance:

The WaPo ombudsman hits on a pet peeve of mine from way back: reporting that focuses on how policy proposals are supposedly playing, rather than what’s actually in them. Back in 2004 I looked at TV reports on health care plans, and found not a single segment actually explaining the candidates’ plans. This time the WaPo ombud looks at his own paper’s reporting, and it’s not much better.

Why does this happen? I suspect several reasons.

1. It’s easier to research horse-race stuff....2. It’s easier to write horse-race stuff....3. It’s safer to cover the race.

I suspect there at least two other reasons as well.' First, news operations, by definition, report news.' And horserace stuff changes all the time.' There's always something new to report.

But that's not so for the policy stuff.' You can write a big piece comparing the various healthcare proposals out there, and once you've done it, you're done.' You're not going to run another piece a week later covering the exact same ground.' You need to find a new angle.' But policy doesn't change all that much, and there are only just so many fresh angles on this stuff.' So if you're dedicated to reporting on new stuff, you're going to have a tough time writing lots of policy primers.

Second, let's face it: most people fall asleep when they come across stuff like this.' Even here in the blogosphere most readers have only a limited appetite for wonkery, and as Krugman mentions, trying to make this stuff interesting is next to impossible.' 'I’ve spent years trying to learn the craft,' he says, 'and it still often comes out way too dry.'' And that's despite the fact that he has the advantage of writing for the most educated, politically engaged audience you can imagine.

This is only going to get worse.' I don't think mainstream news outlets have ever been all that good at explaining policy, but they've probably gotten worse over the years as attention spans have shortened and the media environment has gotten ever louder and more ubiquitous.' You really can't explain healthcare reform in two minutes, but fewer and fewer people are willing to sit around for much longer than that.

The fault, in other words, lies not in the media, but in ourselves.' The mainstream media may have written ten times as much about the townhalls as they did about the actual substance of the healthcare proposals on the table, but the blogosphere only did a little better.' Even here in wonkland, the outrage of the day is a much more tempting blog topic than reimbursement rates for Medicare.

Emperor Barack

David Swanson's "Emperor Barack": In this article, David Swanson outlines the case that, in many ways, Obama is indistinguishable from the man we claimed ran away with the Executive branch just a year ago.

The Public's Right to Know

The Public's Right to Know: Today Adam Liptak gives us yet another reason to lament the financial meltdown in the newspaper industry.' In the past, it was most often newspapers that filed lawsuits demanding access to information that had been placed off limits for one reason or another.' But as their finances dwindle they can't afford to file these kinds of suits as often, and other types of publishers don't want to:

Consider the aftermath of a recent settlement in a lawsuit against Amtrak....As part of the settlement, the parties asked Judge Lawrence F. Stengel of Federal District Court in Philadelphia not only to vacate eight of his decisions in the case but also to ‘direct LexisNexis and Westlaw to remove the decisions’ from ‘their respective legal research services/databases.’

The judge agreed, and the database companies complied.

‘In the infrequent event that we are ordered by the court to remove a decision from Westlaw,’ explained John Shaughnessy, a spokesman for the service, which is owned by ThomsonReuters, ‘we will comply with the order, deleting the text of the decision but keeping the title of the case and its docket number. We also publish the court’s order to remove so there’s a clear record of the action.’

In cases like this, newspapers have traditionally refused to cooperate.' What's more, they filed suits to keep this kind of information public not just out of concern for their business, but because their owners were genuinely obsessed with First Amendment rights.' Newer businesses, conversely, tend to either have reason to cooperate with the government, or else think of these suits strictly from a perspective of whether they're economically worth it.' We've still got the ACLU, of course, but they can't pick up all the slack.' In the great power struggle between government secrecy and the public's right to know, the demise of the newspaper industry is a victory for the bad guys.

"

(Via MoJo Blogs and Articles.)

Government To Ban Unwanted 'Robocalls'

Government To Ban Unwanted 'Robocalls': "

The Federal Trade Commission said Thursday it is banning many types of prerecorded telemarketing solicitations. Currently, consumers must specifically join a do-not-call list to avoid them. Starting Sept. 1, telemarketers will first need written permission from the customer to make such calls. Violators will face penalties of up to $16,000 per call.

» E-Mail This'''' » Add to Del.icio.us

"

(Via Top Stories.)