On First Anniversary of Wisconsin Uprising, Gov. Walker Fights Recall Effort by Energized Movement

On First Anniversary of Wisconsin Uprising, Gov. Walker Fights Recall Effort by Energized Movement (from Democracy Now! this AM)

LGBTQ Rights Activists on Victories for Marriage Equality in California and Washington

This week has been a week of celebration for anyone who believes in equality & human rights. In both California & Washington state the right of lesbians & gay men to share in the basic rights that all human beings have to marry the people they love has taken a major stride. I have never been able to get my head around the religious right argument that one couple's getting married could have any adverse effect on our marriage. This is so bizarre. In fact, marriage will be strengthened as an institution if more people who are likely to stay together, unlike heterosexual serial marriages, get married. Here is a discussion of these developments from this morning's "Democracy Now".

LGBTQ Rights Activists on Victories for Marriage Equality in California and Washington

Ralph Nader Responds to Obama's State of the Union Address

"He Says One Thing and Does Another": Ralph Nader Responds to Obama's State of the Union Address

Egypt: Sharif Abdel Kouddous Reports from Cairo Marking 1 Year of Rebellion in Tahrir Square; HBO documentary tonight

HBO will mark the 1st anniversary of the uprising in Egypt with "In Tahrir Square" showing Democracy Now correspondent Sharif Abdel Kouddous reporting from Tahrir Square in the first 18 days of the rebellion. Unfortunately the discussion with the filmmakers at the end of the broadcast is cut-off.

Egypt: Sharif Abdel Kouddous Reports from Cairo as Crowds Mark 1 Year of Revolution in Tahrir Square

First African Woman to win Nobel Peace Prize, Wangari Maathai dies at 71

Nobel Peace Prize, Right Livelihood Winner Wangari Maathai (1940-2011)

Sept. 13: Noam Chomsky on Democracy Now!

Democracy Now! will spend the hour with Noam Chomsky on Tuesday, Sept. 13 [WBAI-FM (radio) or MNN 1 (TV) @ 8AM]

As the nation commemorates the 10th anniversary of 9/11, he will discuss, among other topics, the new edition of his book, 9/11. Published more than a decade ago, it is still one of the most uncompromising assessments of the attacks on the World Trade Center.

Billy Bragg sings "Never Buy the Sun" on the Murdoch hacking scandal

Billy Bragg sings "Never Buy the Sun" on the Murdoch hacking scandal. On Democracy Now Just for the record people from Liverpool are called "Scousers."

For the complete one hour interview with Billy Bragg on Democracy Now in which he discusses the song & the whole Murdoch scandal (and much more). He also sings (among others) "There's Power in the Union."

Billy Bragg: Legendary British Rocker on Norway Attacks, Activism & His Latest, “Never Buy The Sun”

Pushing Crisis: GOP Cries Wolf on Debt Ceiling In Order To Impose Radical Pro-Rich Agenda

Two things are becoming more & more clear as President Obama & Congress come to an agreement on how to resolve the current manufactured "debt limit" crisis. First, the corporate oligarchy is following the same historical pattern that Naomi Klein demonstrated so masterfully in The Shock Doctrine. After either a real or manufactured crisis - like the Aug. 2nd deadline to raise the debt limit - is created, the corporate oligarchy takes advantage of the shocks that emanate from the crisis to further enrich & empower themselves. This is, of course, enabled by the corporate-owned politicians & media. And that's effectively what Prof. Michael Hudson argues in this episode (7/22) of Democracy Now. He says:

What's happening across the world is an attempt by the financial sector to really make its move. ... This is their opportunity for a power grab...to carve up the public domain & give themselves enough money, they're taking the money & running,,,, The only question is how much can they take & how fast.

The other thing we're learning is much more about President Obama and his role in all this. Sometime ago, it was suggested that if there were still progressive Republicans, Obama would be a Republican. Michael Hudson says:

You could see it all coming before Mr. Obama took office when he appointed the Deficit Reduction Commission. He appointed opponents of social security [like] Republican Senator Simpson, Bowles, Clinton's Chief of Staff. Obama really believes in trickle down economics. He believes that Wall Street [are] job creators, not downsizers And outsourcers and foreclosers. That's the tragedy of all this. Now the question is how can a Democratic president put forth a Republican program? In reality there has to be a crisis [when] in reality there is no crisis at all.

Pushing Crisis: GOP Cries Wolf on Debt Ceiling In Order To Impose Radical Pro-Rich Agenda

What do Obama, the Gang of Six and Paul Ryan have in common by Jack Rasmus (Truthout)

Amy Goodman interviews playwright Tony Kushner on the CUNY Controversy, Academic Freedom and Israel

Amy Goodman interviews playwright Tony Kushner today on the CUNY Controversy, Academic Freedom and Israel

Obama Admin to Propose Lower Corporate Tax Rate

According to this morning's (Thurs. 5/5) Democracy Now!
Obama Admin to Propose Lower Corporate Tax Rate
Just what an economy struggling with heavy deficits needs - a lower corporate tax rate - but then Obama is running for re-election. This only works in the fantasyland in which Obama & Geithner live, in which Republicans will follow the president's lead & not undercut him. I wonder what our good friend, Rep. Michael Grimm (R-SI), will have to say about the American taxpayer not being an ATM for corporate welfare. But I guess Mr. Grimm believes in fairy tales.

King hearings on Muslim Radicalization Decried as a New McCarthyism

Has anyone else been wondering when the demonic ghost of Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisc) took over the body of Rep. Peter King (R-NY3)? Clearly, the McCarthy & King witch hunts were/are designed to stir up fear across the land.

Hearings on Muslim Radicalization Decried as a New McCarthyism (from Democracy Now)

Profits trump safety and accountability in Gulf oil rig explosion

Here are two stories from Democracy Now! headlines this morning (Mon. 12/27) regading the failure of the system intended to protect the oil rig in the Gulf because profits took precedence over safety & the interference of the same companies with the investigation of the disaster.



Investigators: Involvement of Companies Undermining Oil Spill Probe


Report: All of Rig's Defense Systems Failed During Explosion

Chronicles of capitalism

From today's (11/18) Democracy Now:

(1) Insurers Gave Chamber Over $86M to Defeat Healthcare Reform

Newly disclosed figures show the nation’s largest health insurance corporations funneled some $86.2 million to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to oppose healthcare reform last year. Companies including UnitedHealth and CIGNA provided the money through their main lobbying group, America’s Health Insurance Plans. The spending exceeded the group’s entire budget from the year before and accounted for 40 percent of the Chamber’s 2009 budget. The money was used to fund ads, polling and public events to stir opposition to the healthcare overhaul. An anonymous source confirmed to Bloomberg News that the money came from insurers because federal tax laws don’t require identification of donors. In a statement, the Center for Responsive Politics said, "Perhaps this key debate would have progressed differently if the true source of the chamber’s spending had been known at the time."

(2) Study: Lawmakers’ Personal Wealth Increased 16% in 2008

A new study shows members of Congress saw a boost in personal wealth as the U.S. economy suffered the worst of the economic recession. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, lawmakers’ personal wealth increased an average 16 percent between 2008 and 2009. The number of millionaires rose to 261, nearly half the total members of Congress. The median wealth of a House member topped $765,000, while the average for a senator was more than $2.3 million.

(3) GOP Blocks Paycheck Fairness Act in Senate

Republican senators have blocked a measure to fight wage discrimination against female workers. The Paycheck Fairness Act would increase enforcement of laws requiring equal pay for men and women. But on Wednesday, all Republican senators voted to prevent the bill from coming to a vote.

[Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson was the only Democrat who voted with the Republicans.]

(4) FBI Meets with Google, Facebook in Wiretap Push

The Obama administration is intensifying a push to expand government wiretapping of online communications, including emails, Facebook postings and internet phone calls. The administration wants Congress to require immediate compliance with wiretap orders seeking government monitoring of encrypted messages sent over the internet. The New York Times reports FBI Director Robert Mueller met with top executives at several major Silicon Valley firms, including Google and Facebook, earlier this week. The White House proposals include a requirement that any services based overseas be routed communications through a U.S. server where they could be wiretapped.

Did someone say something about democracy?

Congress choice on healthcare: It's simple: Us or them

Let's be very clear the vote in Congress on any healthcare bill is very simply a choice between the people and the healthcare insurance companies. This is the way Howard Dean put it last Friday (7/17) on Democracy Now:

Well, I am going to address it, not specifically to Chairman [Max] Baucus [D-Montana], but let me just be very clear about this. This has been cast in the media, and probably seen by Republican consultants, as a Republican versus Democrat issue or conservative versus liberal issue. It’s not. When 72 percent of the American people, including more than 50 percent of Republicans, believe that they ought to have the choice between a public or a private system, this is not a liberal-conservative thing. This is whether you’re going to vote with the health insurance companies or whether you’re going to vote for what 72 percent of your constituencies want. That is what this vote is about.

Mothers' Day was originally (1870) an anti-war day

When you are celebrating Mothers' Day on Sunday (May 10) it would be a good idea to remember the reason Julia Ward Howe first suggested the holiday. According to Amy Goodman (on Democracy Now) this morning: Julia Ward Howe’s “Mother’s Day Proclamation,” which was written in 1870, protest[ed] the carnage of the Civil War, Amy also showed a brief new film by Robert Greenwald on Mothers' Day. Here are the opening words (Reading the film by Gloria Steinem):

Mother’s Day really was in its origin an antiwar day, an antiwar statement. Julia Ward Howe was sickened by what had happened during the Civil War, the loss of life, the carnage, and she created Mother’s Day as a call for women all over the world to come together and create ways of protesting war, of making a kind of alternate government that could finally do away with war as an acceptable way of solving conflict

Obviously this is as relevant today (maybe more) than in 1870.

Here is the excerpt from Greenwald's Mothers' Day video (as shown this morning on Democracy Now).




(If you are reading this on FaceBook, click here to see video)

Republicans bust Amy Goodman and Democracy Now staff

Last week, Democracy Now came head to head with the $50 million RNC security operation.

Last week's arrests of journalists, including Democracy Now!'s own Amy Goodman, Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar are chilling examples of how police targeted journalists during the RNC in St. Paul. As you probably know, Amy has been charged with a misdemeanor for intervening to stop the wrongful arrests of her colleagues who face pending felony charges for simply carrying out their journalistic duties.

The world watched as the Twin Cities Police trampled the first amendment. The YouTube video of Amy's arrest has been viewed more than 750,000 times. It was the most watched YouTube video on Tuesday. The story of journalist arrests and charges was covered by media outlets from the LA Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, San Francisco Guardian, Philadelphia Daily News, Denver Post, Associated Press, Editor & Publisher, Salon.com, as well as by local and public radio stations, and by political and news bloggers around the world.

To make donations to support Democracy Now

Democracy Now! expands to two-hours during party conventions

Breaking With Convention: War, Peace and the Presidency

Democracy Now! will expand to a two-hour broadcast during the Democratic and Republican National Conventions. Amy Goodman and the Democracy Now! crew will travel to Denver and St. Paul to cover the 2008 conventions from the ground.

DNC two-hour broadcasts: August 25th–29th
RNC two-hour broadcasts: September 1st–5th

Please contact your local radio or TV station for local expanded listings,
or watch/listen to the whole broadcast on democracynow.org.

Volunteer to spread the word about Democracy Now! during the RNC and DNC:

Democracy Now! is looking for volunteers to help spread the word about the show and the expanded two-hour broadcast during the conventions. If you live in Denver or St. Paul or just plan on attending the conventions and want to help out, please email outreach@democracynow.org

Volunteer as a Cameraperson:

Democracy Now! is also looking for volunteer camerapeople with their own equipment during both the DNC and RNC. If you are available please email: conventions@democracynow.org

Volunteer as a Transcriber:

As you know we transcribe every show on our website everyday, but with the two-hour expansion we need more help. DN! is looking for volunteers to transcribe 15-minute segments right after the show. Note that transcribers do not need to be in Denver or St. Paul and can help from anywhere. If you are available please email: transcribe@democracynow.org

All governments lie, but Bush and Co. have shredded democracy

If there was ever any doubt about it, we now have conclusive evidence that our government has been lying to us through its teeth almost constantly. Although the Bush administration has turned lying into an art form (it's virtually the only thing they do with any efficiency) they by no means invented the practice. As I.F. Stone warned us:

All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out.

Although I doubt that hashish is still the drug of choice in the White House (or the halls of Congress), I have been wondering for some time what the presidential Bush and the vice-presidential Dick have been smoking, it would be nice to know, it must be really good stuff. Government mendacity doesn't even seem to be the attribute of one political party. Democrat Lyndon Johnson used the fictitious Tonkin Bay incident much the same way Bush used the Weapons of Mass Destruction - to provide false pretenses for sending our young women and men to die.

It seems fortuitous that former Bush press secretary Scott McLellan's What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception detailing the lies used to sell the invasion of Iraq and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report which told the same story surfaced within a week of each other. But they clearly reinforce each other. It's important to note here that the Senate report finally surfaced after five years of Republican cover up to protect their president and his cohorts. (In case you were wondering in whose interest your senators and representatives were working.) In an editorial (June 6) The New York Times said:

It has taken five years to finally come to a reckoning over how much the Bush administration knowingly twisted and hyped intelligence to justify that invasion. On Thursday — after years of Republican stonewalling — a report by the Senate Intelligence Committee gave us as good a set of answers as we’re likely to get.

The report shows clearly that President Bush should have known that important claims he made about Iraq did not conform with intelligence reports. In other cases, he could have learned the truth if he had asked better questions or encouraged more honest answers.

This is almost exactly what McClellan tells us. Except he tends to let Bush off the hook and blames the rest of the administration and the enabling media.

As important as all this is and we knew it all before last week, I think what's really important is how these lies that "all governments tell" destroy the very foundations of democracy. The basic building block of any truly democratic society is trust. If we can't trust each other and those we elect to act in the common interest how can the system work? Bush and company lied (about the most crucial decision any government can make) and his Congressional groupies (on both sides of the aisle) swore to it. Over 4,000 young American women and men and many more thousands of Iraqis paid the supreme penalty because Bush and his acolytes lied. Democracy simply can't work under those conditions.

As far as I can determine Bush clone John McSame has not yet responded to the Senate report. But it's fairly clear, from other things he has said, that he would follow in his master's footsteps.

So what can we do?

Well - as Rep. Kucinich (D-OH) has said - impeachment would be a real first step.

But the same people who thought impeachment was an appropriate response to a president getting blow jobs in the Oval Office, don't seem to think lying to send thousands to their death in Iraq or incompetence in the face of Katrina are impeachable offenses. Well let's put it in terms they might understand - it would serve as a deterrent to the next government thinking about lying.

But what we have to do is take back our government and re-birth our democracy. That's going to be a tough job. We have to undo about 30 years of right-wing plundering of our political system.

With all due respect to our own neo-con snake oil sellers, there is something even more ominous abroad in the land: the huge military machine that we have created in the post-World War II period. When the Cold War came to an end there was a period of time (albeit brief) when an alternative to permanent war was possible. Then along came 9/11 and the Global War on Terror (GWT). Remember that in the past when a nation decided to go to war, even when we decided to enter WWII, it had to be mobilized on to a war footing. Now we have an enormous war machine waiting to be put to use. Like any technology once its in place we are more likely to use it. There are a number of complex issues that flow from this. According to Robert Scheer:

...after mandated programs are funded, the military consumes roughly six out of ten dollars. As a consequence, increases in domestic spending must be funded by cutbacks in military spending. That is the most honest way to judge the opportunity cost of the military dollar, as in, two unneeded submarines versus health insurance for 4 million kids.

There is, however, a greater cost to having a huge permanent military: the vitality of our democracy. As we saw in the run-up to the Iraq War, the fearmongers who seek an expanded military are not above using their enormous lobbying power to influence the debate. The public will not support the military unless it feels its activities are connected with a real threat, so the military and its suppliers and other allies have to exaggerate that threat. Such is the risk of "the total influence--economic, political, even spiritual" of the military-industrial complex, which Eisenhower warned is 'felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the federal government.' It is a built-in and well-financed constituency that stresses the military option over the diplomatic one, that exaggerates the strength of the enemy rather than realistically appraises it and that desperately finds new wars to be fought.

What is going on in our name is irrational, costly and dangerous, but there are powerful vested interests that want to keep it that way. Those interests remain so strong that neither Barack Obama nor John McCain has called for cutting a military budget that is the largest since World War II. But without such cuts all the campaign promises about funding domestic programs, from education to healthcare, are an obvious fraud.

So, in addition to the thousands of lives - both American and Iraqi - lost and the more than a million displaced Iraqis, the costs of feeding the bloated (and often irrelevant to the current challenges)war machine has enormous domestic consequences. So the lies that led us into an invasion and occupation that denies the essence of who we are also undermines our ability to fulfill our needs at home. At some point it has to stop. And only we can stop it by taking back our democracy and electing people who can be trusted to act in our interests. Keep this in mind the next time the Republicans go on about raising taxes to finance new domestic programs. There is an alternative.

Congressional races also count

As the corporate-owned media almost exclusively cover the presidential primaries, Americans are voting to enhance their 2006 vote to put Democrats in charge of Congress. Only Amy Goodman is covering the Congressional races on Democracy Now. Despite the (or maybe because of the) Democrats latest collaboration with the Bush regime, Democrats are voting for congress members who will actually vote to reject the Bush regime immoral and illegal moves.

In [Maryland's] Fourth Congressional District, Democratic activist Donna Edwards defeated eight-term incumbent Albert Wynn in a fiercely contested race.

The race has been described by The Nation magazine as “a bellwether contest in the fight for the soul of the Democratic Party.” Edwards ran a populist, antiwar campaign that drew support from national liberal groups.

Super Tuesday. What Now?

Although I would much rather talk about Super Sunday, it seems clear that we have to shift our gaze to the aftermath of that other media-hyped super day: super Tuesday.

As we watch the Republican candidates (almost surely at this point John "I don't know much about the economy" McCain) move further and further to the right to please the Limbaugh wing of the party. Watch them cowtow to the Conservative Political Action Committee this weekend. I think McCain will probably pick extreme right-wing Huckelberry (as my friend Bert calls him) as his running mate. Although it's interesting to watch McCain hold a live press conference with right-wing independent(?) Joe Lieberman (possibly the perennial vice-presidential candidate) peering over his shoulder. Is Romney taking today off to talk to his family (about how much of their inheretance he should spend to tilt at windmills) a portent of dropping out? We now have to figure out how progressives (Democrat or independent) should relate to the two Democratic candidates left standing - Clinton and Obama.

The first thing we have to understand is that they are both politicians and therefore will do whatever they have to do to get elected. Try this on for size: Sam Stein reports on The Huffington Post:

Risking the ire of progressive activists, Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign announced that it has accepted a debate to air on Fox News on February 11, according to her chief strategist Mark Penn. (for more on this)

We have to make it clear that they have to attend to progressive issues if they want our votes. It seems to me that the big mistake progressives often make is to tie our movement to a particular candidate - in other words, to reify electoral politics at the expense of the progressive movemement, to commit ourselves without getting what we need for our support.

A very good friend and comrade has said in an e-mail he sent out explaining his decision to vote for Clinton, even at the expense of angering his Obama-supporting family: "I remain deeply skeptical about Obama and voted for Clinton," he writes. Although I share his skepticism about Obama's tendency to paper over deep and abiding divisions (class conflicts?) within this society. But I don't quite follow the conclusion that voting for Clinton better speaks to these differences. Is she more sensetive to these real differences than is Obama? I think not.

In the same e-mail he questions some progressives who are

very happy that Obama's campaign is bringing young people into electoral politics. I too applaud this altho I do not think that the core issues our society faces can be basically addressed in the electoral or legislative arena. I am only slightly overstating the case when I say that a pre-occupation with electoral politics can draw attention away from more substantive, core, socio-economic issues. I realize that there is some overlap between the two. Participation in electoral politics is by no means an error in and of itself.

The real question it seems to me is why should we applaud young people being brought into electoral politics as individuals rather than as part of a movement that can confront the candidates and say, "if you don't share our values, why should we vote for you?" Drawing young people into electoral politics is exactly what, I think, legitimates a Nader or other small party candidacy.

Tim Carpenter of Progressive Democrats of America put it this way this morning on Democracy Now:

the challenge for the progressive movement and the peace and justice movement is to come off the sidelines and continue in this effort to hold the Clinton machine back, to hold back this election to make sure that we get a full accounting of all of the primaries and caucuses, and to try to make Barack Obama a better candidate.

The key, I think, is that we need to do this as a movement not as a bunch of individuals relating to different candidates.

Tom Hayden says about the participation of the peace movement in the electoral process:

hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of voters will make up their minds on which of the candidates is best on ending the Iraq war with little involvement by peace activists in the debate.
There are differences that matter between Clinton and Obama, not as great as between the Democrats and McCain, but significant nonetheless. They are these:

1.Obama favors a 16-18 month timeline for withdrawing U.S. combat troops. Clinton favors “immediately” convening the Joint Chiefs to draft a plan to “begin” drawing down U.S. troops, but with no timetable for completing the withdrawal.
2.Obama opposed the measure authorizing Bush to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, widely regarded as an escalating step towards another war. Clinton voted for the authorization.
3.Obama opposed the 2002 authorization for war that Clinton voted for. Clinton still calls that decision a “close call” and refuses to say it was a mistaken vote.

It’s true that both candidates support leaving thousands of 'residual' American troops behind for a likely counterinsurgency conflict that we should all oppose. Peace activists should demand a shift to peace diplomacy beginning with a U.S. commitment to end the occupation and withdraw all troops.

This is, of course, the point: do we applaude bringing people into electoral politics as individuals or as part of a larger and thereby stronger movement?

Bill Fletcher of The Black Commentator also said on this morning's Democracy Now:

while it’s true that many younger people have been inspired and motivated to the Obama campaign and have been prepared to put race aside in certain respects, we should keep in mind that the Obama campaign has not exactly made racial justice central programmatically to its campaign. So while people may have—or may be prepared to ignore the fact or accept the fact that Obama is black and they’re prepared to vote for him, that’s very different than having a discussion about race.

That's it for now. We could say much the same about the environmental movement, health care, the economy, but ultimately the question is about the dialectic between the progressive movement and the political process. If we jump on a bandwagon too soon we will have no effect on the outcome, but if we stay out of the process we will slso have no effect. You know, they say you gotta be in it to win it, but if you jump in too soon with too much, soon you'll be gambling away the rent.