The venomously bigoted, corrupt, extreme right organization, the "Democratic Leadership Council" which was really an organization that followed the lead and ideology of the Republican extreme right, is gone, gone gone. That's right. They are following their ideological clones at the Crystal Cathedral into bankruptcy.
The group was once chaired by Bill Clinton because Bubba thought the Democratic Party wasn't sufficiently corrupt, racist, sexist, and homophobic to satisfy him. He pushed through their hateful, GOP style policies throughout his time as President. Those very DLC policies drove Democratic voter turnout way down and kept it down, handing Congress to the GOP in 1994 and keeping them in power throughout the rest of his presidency.
(Lieberbush was Chair from 1995-2001, providing an example of just how reprehensible that organization truly was.)
The DLC proved itself to be sleazy all the way up to the bitter end. If you check their website, their main focus of late was trying to ship more American jobs abroad during the Great Recession.
One of the comical sideshows to all of this is that the corporate media keep portraying an organization whose political views are far to the right of the overwhelming majority of Americans as "centrist." Maybe the DLC's agenda was towards the center of the ideology of the rich Republicans who own these media outlets, but it sure was loony right for the bulk of us.
Obviously, the wealthy interests behind the Democratic Liquidation Council still have enormous power over the Democratic Party. However, it is nice to see one less organization in this world promoting bigotry, discrimination, and blatant political corruption.
Illustration: ddogbreath
When I saw this Murdoch Street Journal column by Peggy Noonan linked on Google News, I knew it would be fab fodder for Tengrain at Mock, Paper, Scissors. He doesn't disappoint. (Distributor Cap did some fun illustrations too, I might add.)
However, when I saw the title of the babblethon, "We Pay Them to Be Rude to Us," I thought it might be fodder for political commentary. Noonan didn't disappoint either. So, I broke my rule about linking to Rupert Murdoch's media empire to dish her crap.
What I find so intriguing about Ms. Noonan's meandering prose in this case is that she complains about things that are the fault of the rightist era brought into place in this country by her idol, the execrable Ronald Reagan.
Once we were a great industrial nation. Now we are a service economy. Which means we are forced to interact with each other, every day, in person and by phone and email. And it's making us all a little mad.
Ronnie was the person who pushed a "free trade" agreement with Mexico that eventually was implemented by fellow rightist, Bill Clinton. Instead of calling for higher tariffs to keep corporations from exporting industry abroad. Ronnie was a cheerleader for deindustrialization. All the rightists who have been in the office have supported corporate controlled trade too. Yet, she doesn't see the connection between the right and our service oriented economy.
Noonan also complains about a letter she got a few years back.
I wrote of the same experience a few years ago and got a letter from a saleswoman in a big department store. She said, I paraphrase: "You misunderstand, it's not that we haven't been taught how to behave, it's that we have. We are trained to make and maintain eye contact, we are taught to intrude, we are instructed to act in a way that people used to recognize as rude behavior."
This is mainly the result of conservative policies. The primary cause is the draining of income from the poor and middle class and the diversion to the rich. That has increased shoplifting, whose prevention is the main goal of all that "friendly" but really watchful behavior by salespeople.
Peggy Noonan later complained about the tightened security in airports that is the result of the right's foreign policies and the efforts to create a terrorized populace at home. Her specific complaints about a screener are loaded with irony, given her position to the political right.
When I'd first gone through the machine and then been manhandled, a month before, I was so taken aback that I blurted "Wow, that was embarrassing." I said it softly, in a way that invited mild commiseration of the "I know, I'm sorry I have to do this" sort. Instead, with full Dead Face, the TSA woman said, "Have a nice day." As I walked away I thought: She has been taught by consultants how to "handle" people like me. Her instructions are that if anyone accepts her ministrations with anything but passive surrender, she is to show she is impervious and keep the line moving. She is probably taught this in a class given by government contractors who are paid by taxpayers to handle taxpayers. Meaning I pay her to be rude to me.
I'll have to number these.
1) Customer service oriented at shutting up consumers and getting them to take it is part and parcel of deregulation that has affected nearly every sector of our economy. Smiling while not giving a flying fuck has become a cultural norm in a society where corporations have way too much power. Why should corporations give a shit when government policy keeps the balance of power in their favor?
2) Contempt for consumers has grown as retail outlets consolidate. Much of the consolidation of that sector and others is illegal under antitrust law. But, conservative administrations refuse to engage in much beyond the most token enforcement of antitrust law. Corporations that don't need to fight for customers have created a situation where The Customer Is Serf, and that too has permeated the culture.
3) The excessive reliance on government contractors is the result of privatization of so much of our government, another rightist policy.
4) The disregard for privacy is one of the most prominent political tenets on the right. Ronnie's opposition to abortion was a prime example of it and set the stage for other violations of privacy. This all has gotten much worse after 911 where the right's politicians were more interested in using the attacks as an excuse to violate the privacy of innocent Americans than to actually improve our nation's defenses against terrorism. Anti regulatory sentiment also has kept regulations from being passed to restrict the voracious appetites of corporations for peoples' private information.
The Upshot
Ms. Noonan is pained by the effects on her person by living in a rightist society. I would be sympathetic towards her if not for how she has been one of the most obnoxious enablers of the very things she rails against. She recognizes that we all want an evacuation slide like the one taken by the heroic Steve Slater. But, she is so beholden to the very system that is making us all wish we could bail out sometimes.
Photo: WexDub
Update: Sean Fenley skewers Noonan for another recent column where she refuses to take responsibility for the rightist policies that are making most Americans justifiably outraged these days.

Photo: Muffett
Barack Bush's Cat Food Commission is being marketed as a "deficit commission." The sales strategy is to claim that slashing Social Security and Medicare are necessary to reduce deficits and are the only options.
That is absolute nonsense. Here are some of the far superior options for deficit reduction that are off the table for the Cat Food Commission, proving what a lie the whole thing is.
- Repealing corporate controlled trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA, and the GATT agreement that created the WTO which reduce tariff revenues (Tariffs traditionally have been major sources of revenue for governments.)
- Repealing the tax cuts for the rich that passed under Reagan, Carter, and Kennedy
- An immediate and full withdrawal from Iraq
- An immediate and full withdrawal from Afghanistan/Pakistan
- An end to covert operations in Iran
- End of all aid to Israel
- End of aid and support for the fascist dictatorship in Colombia
- Eliminating tax deductions which only rich people can take advantage of
- Closing most military bases abroad
- Legalization of Marijuana
- Sentencing crack like other cocaine
- Repealing cuts in corporate taxes that have passed in recent decades
- Taxing capital gains (other than primary home sales) like income actually earned by working
- Cut back on wasteful military spending
- Cut back on wasteful and unconstitutional homeland security spending
- Instituting a luxury tax
- Legalization of gambling
- Legalization of prostitution
Somehow, these options for deficit reduction never get considered by "deficit hawks" in DC and in the corporate media. Their beloved Cat Food Commission is all about robbing the middle class and poor and giving money to the rich.
Florida's teabagger Senate candidate Marco Rubio really is willing to go the extra Lipton for Big Oil donors. Check out this quote from his campaign website.
“We all agree that the Gulf oil spill is a tremendous tragedy that must never be repeated. But drilling is going to happen off our coast whether it’s done by America, China and Cuba, which just last week announced plans to drill 60 miles off the Florida Keys. We still need safer and smarter offshore energy exploration to end our addiction to foreign oil.”
There are significant logistical problems for Cuba drilling oil that Rubio ignores. Without the US lifting its trade embargo, Cuba can't refine the oil. The only potential drilling deal is between a Spanish oil company, not a Chinese company.
Also, even if other countries can drill oil in the Gulf, they cannot drill in our territorial waters unless they get permission from the US, like British Petroleum did. Keeping oil drilling off of our coastlines reduces the risk by reducing the total amount of drilling that is possible and by keeping what remains farther away from our country.
Rubio also conveniently neglects to mention that America would do just fine with phasing out offshore drilling. As I pointed out in a previous posting, all it would take is a comprehensive, green energy policy. Our addiction is to oil, not just foreign oil. We can and should ween ourselves off of petroleum.
You would think that a politician running for the Senate from Florida would be smart enough to oppose offshore drilling, which is doing terrible damage to Florida's tourism industry as it is. However, like the rest of the teabaggers, Rubio is a pawn for corporate interests and doesn't give a damn about his state. I still am amazed that so many people haven't figured out the the teabagger "movement" is corporate Astroturf.
This is nothing short of brazen political panhandling.
Photo: naama
Expanding public rail transport is a great way to address a lot of problems facing our society. Some of those problems include:
- Global Warming
- Automobile Accident Deaths
- High Unemployment
- Trade Deficits
- The Obesity Epidemic
So far, Congress and the Obama administration have been giving rail transportation and public transit in general a far lower priority than building more and more roads, which makes all the problems mentioned above worse, except high unemployment. We need budgets and stimulus plans that make trains a higher priority than cars.
One way to promote rail transport is now available on Change.org. They are now doing voting on Ideas for Change, proposals to bring real, positive changes to our government and our society. One of those ideas is to Rebuild America's Rail System. Voting for it is one way to promote rail transit. Blogging about it is another.
Here's the code you can use to put the widget for it on your blog or blog posting.

Photo: Talk Radio News*
Now that extreme right presidential candidate Ron Paul is won the straw poll at the fascist CPAC convention, it's time for people to consider who is really is and what he really stands for. His cultish supporters have engaged in a campaign of disinformation on liberal and progressive websites for some time now. Back in 2007, I investigated Paul's actual views and agenda and reported the results. This information looks to be even more relevant now than it was then.
Ron Paul has a swarm of zealots on the Internet, spewing pro-Paul propaganda in all sorts of liberal and progressive forums. The Paul worshipers will accurately point out his opposition to the Iraq War and the Unpatriotic Act, but they conveniently omit the vast majority of Paul's views, which are hateful and wacky right-wing. The deception is starting to offend a lot of liberals, and I'm one of them. After all, if Paul could get a 75% rating in 2005 from the “Family Research Council,” a Christian Right hate-group, that should give you some idea of where Paul really stands.
Here are some other ratings of interest:
* Secular Coalition for America: 20% (2004)
* Americans for the Arts Action Fund: 0% (2000, 01, 02, 03, 04)
* Leadership Conference on Civil Rights: 38% (2005)
* Human Rights Campaign: 25% (2003-04), 0% in previous years
* John Birch Society: 100% (2004-2006 in quarterly ratings, except for 88% in Spring 04)
* National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws: 14% (2004), 30% (2005)
* Campaign for America's Future: 0% (2005-06, energy issues)
* Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America: F (2006)
Bigotry Against Atheists
It should be noted that each of the following three positions contradict Paul's claims that he is a libertarian and that he supports individual freedom.
Opposes Restoring the Pledge of Allegience to the Version Without “Under God”
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2002/pr062702.htm
Co-Sponsored Constitutional Amendment Pushing Coerced Prayer in the Public Schools
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HJ00078:@@@L&summ2=m&
Voted to Allow Bigoted Alabama Judge to Post “Ten Commandments” in Courtroom
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/votes/?votenum=257&chamber=H&congress=1091
Homophobia
Here are a couple of examples of Ron Paul's views, aside from his opposition to ENDA.
Opposes Hate Crimes Laws
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst050707.htm
Supports “Don't Ask, Don't Tell”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
Voted for Amendment Attempting to Block DC Government from Allowing Same-sex Partners to Adopt
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/votes/?votenum=346&chamber=H&congress=1061
Other Right-Wing Extremism,
from his congressional web site:
Opposing Federal Funding for Stem Cell Research:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr052405.htm
Anti-UN:
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2006/pr061506.htm
Pro-Tax Cuts, Nearly All of Which Go to the Rich:
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2006/pr042606.htm
Favors Cutting Gas Taxes:
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2005/pr090705.htm
Against Corporate Accountability:
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2005/pr041405.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2004/pr091604.htm
Glorifying Ronald Reagan:
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2004/pr061004.htm
Supporting Corporate Efforts to Ship US Jobs to China
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr072605.htm
Attacking Gun Control and DC Self Rule
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr100404.htm
Anti-Union
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst98/tst072798.htm
I should also note that I just checked, and it definitely turns out that Paul has been lying when he says he's a libertarian. He is anti choice. No genuine libertarian would support government involvement in the most personal decision possible.
Ron Paul is correct about the Iraq War. His concerns for civil liberties would be more reassuring if he wasn't determined to limit civil liberties to wealthy, heterosexual, white, Christian men. Otherwise, he is a hateful rightist monster scarcely different than David Duke.
* Note on the Photo: I saw Ron Paul and his cultish followers on Wall St. last year. He looked incredibly lost, confused, and feeble. I couldn't get a clear cell phone pic of him because I kept getting blocked by Paulintologists. This picture shows him less out of it than the day I saw him on Wall St., but the photo I'm running from Talk Radio News was taken in January of 2008. He may have declined mentally since then.
During the first year of his administration, Barack Obama followed Bush regime policies in most major areas, while making a number of small concessions to try to mollify Democratic voters. Here are some examples of major policy continuity:
1) Increasing total occupying forces in Iraq (troops plus mercenaries)
2) Continuing the policy of kidnapping people and sending them to other countries to be tortured ("extraordinary rendition")
3) Keeping the torture center in Guantanamo open
4) Expanding the Bush regime's hate based initiatives to take federal grant money from inclusive nonprofits and give it to nonprofits that discriminate on the basis of religion.
5) Continuing the policy of creating AFRICOM.
6) Refusing to withdraw from the World Trade Organization
7) Refusing to negotiate the end of corporate controlled trade agreements such as NAFTA
8) Attending "National Prayer Breakfasts"
9) Expaning the wars in Pakistan and Afghanistan
10) Supporting a huge corporate giveaway in the name of "healthcare reform" (remember the Bush regime's Medicare changes?)
11) Refusing to support legislation cracking down on bankster and brokester bonuses.
12) Continuing illegal spying on Americans without warrants.
I could go on, and on, and on, but you get the point. This year's administration budget proposal includes some important continuity with the Bush regime. Obama wants domestic spending (including veterans benefits) frozen while continuing enormous increases of military spending. The proposal does nothing to cut off funding for the illegal war on Iraq that goes against American values.
Yet, there is an aspect of the budget that actually does represent a major break with the policies of the Bush regime. President Obama is calling for Bush's tax cuts for the rich to expire. Even when the tax breaks expire, the parasitical rich in this country won't be paying anywhere near their fair share in taxes. But, any progress in this area is critically important. It represents a break with 30 years of corrupt policies that have robbed the poor and middle class to benefit wealthy campaign donors.
We need to pressure President Obama to break with more Bush regime policies. This is a good start, but Obama has a long way to go before he can call himself a Real Democrat.
Columbia's government carries the trappings of democracy, and the US corporate media presents that regime as a freely elected government. Never mind that political opponents are routinely detained, harassed, and even killed by the rightist government and its death squads.
Because the Uribe regime in that country panders to US corporate interests (explaining the Bush regime's obsessive effort to try to pass a corporate controlled trade deal with them), our delightful corporate media discusses at length how the FARC rebels are involved in the drug trade, while leaving out the fact that the government there is at least as much involved.
Gee, can you imagine that?
Anyway, the Uribe dictatorship has recently been investigated by some parliamentarians from Britain's Labor Party (acting against the wishes of Gordon Brown and his cabinet ministers) and other human rights advocates. Here is their 4/11/09 press statement, sans signatories. (Hat Tip Ten Percent)
PRESS STATEMENT: JUSTICE FOR COLOMBIA DELEGATION
We are a delegation of British Parliamentarians and British, American and Canadian trade unionists, and have spent seven days here in Colombia gathering information on human and labour rights abuses. We have met a wide range of individuals and groups across Colombian society, covering civil, political, legal and military interests, including trade unions, students and teachers, indigenous peoples, peasant farmers, trade union lawyers, human rights defenders, and former FARC hostages. We have travelled to Arauca province to hear the testimonials of communities and individuals caught up in the conflict in that part of the country. We visited Buon Pastor prison in Bogota and spoke to the women political prisoners incarcerated there; we also met with Martin Sandoval, imprisoned unjustly in Arauca. We had the opportunity in speaking also with senior members of Alvaro Uribe's government and the President himself. We are grateful to all those individuals and groups who have generously given us their time.
We are shocked at what we have heard, and have no doubts on the evidence given that the Colombian government of Alvaro Uribe, and the security forces, are complicit in human rights crimes. We are convinced also that the murderous activities of the paramilitary forces are condoned and actively supported by the government and army. These crimes are aggravated by the impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators and the failure of the legal system to prosecute the criminals and those who issue the orders.
Instead of imprisoning the real criminals, the Government has locked up trade unionists, members of the political opposition and human rights defenders like Martin Sandoval. We call for his immediate release and that of other political prisoners and trade unionists.
On our return to the United Kingdom and North America we will be calling for:
# an immediate end to all military aid and support to the Colombian Government;
# no Free Trade Agreements until human and labour rights are respected in an internationally verifiable way;
# the public exposure of multinational companies, such as for their complicity in human and labour rights violations in Colombia;
# an immediate end to the criminalisation of legitimate and democratic opposition, including Senator Piedad Cordoba, Senator Gloria Ramirez, Congressman Wilson Borja and Dr. Carlos Lozano and others;
# support for dialogue, a peace process and a humanitarian exchange;
# An end to extrajudicial executions and 'false positives' carried out by the Colombian army.
A full account of our findings and recommendations will be published in the near future.
When the rightist pundits demonize Hugo Chavez with false allegations, they seem to get their inspiration from the actual actions of the Colombian dictatorship.
A recent post on Preserve, Protect, and Defend does an excellent job of pointing out the frustrations Obama supporters have with his conservative critics in the corporate media and in Congress. I encourage you to read the whole post, part of which I'm excerpting here.
I'm so sick of all the talking-heads that spout only drivel, second-guessers, back-seat-drivers, know-nothings and do-nothings that I could vomit.
At the same time that they're telling Obama that he's not doing enough: that he should have solved the economic crisis by now— you know, the one that took at least all the years since Reagan took office to create —they're managing to tell him that he's doing too much. Somehow, they've managed to convince themselves he can do both simultaneously.
And they accuse us of calling him Superman.
What they're actually saying is that they don't want to save the environment and create sustainable energy sources. They don't want the rest of us to have affordable health care. They don't want to care for our veterans. They don't want to allow the children of us peons to receive an education. And they absolutely refuse to see how all these matters are related to each other and the economy.
It is understandable that people would be tired of the nihilism and opportunism of the right. However, we all have a responsibility to be "back seat drivers" and "second guessers." In a democracy , that is our responsiblity and inalienable right. We have to remember that politicians work for us, not the other way around.
There are critics on the left who are making legitimate points about the need for Obama to do more. He needs to do more, a lot more, in many areas. Here are some blatantly obvious examples.
- Budgeting a massive expansion of our nation's public transportation network
- Rapidly and completely withdrawing from a war on Iraq that is devastating our economy while destroying theirs
- Working for a moratorium on foreclosures
- Supporting HR 676, the single payer healthcare bill, rather than imperiously saying that single payer is "off the table"
- Restoring all the financial regulations that were included in the Glass-Steagall Act, which was slowly eviscerated by Republicans as well as Phonycrats like Bill Clinton
- Subjecting hedge funds to all the same transparency and regulations of regular mutual funds
- Repealing the Bush tax cuts for the rich ASAP, given the easily observed fact that tax cuts for the rich slow the economy and helped to cause the crises we face
- Budgeting money for the Gulf Coast Civil Works Project
- Working in a calm, cooperative manner with the international community to repeal NAFTA and other corporate controlled trade agreements, including dissolving the World Trade Organization
- Strongly enforcing our nation's antitrust laws so we won't have the economic disruptions caused by huge corporations going under
- Firing Larry Summers, chief Clinton administration architect of financial deregulation and corporate controlled trade deals
These are just areas where there are deficiencies in Obama's economic policies. There are a lot of policy deficiencies in other areas too.
We need to push Obama hard, not blindly support a center-right Democrat like him. We can't afford to go along with too much of the same when the same is devastating our country. Liberals and progressives cannot afford to make the same mistake we made before of giving Bill Clinton a chance. That was a disaster. We need to fight hard no matter which politician is in office.
These are listed in alphabetical order, since it just isn't worth trying to decide which one is the worst. Nutty rightist policies are just as nutty regardless of the political affiliations of the people who shove them down our throats.
MICHAEL BLOOMBERG
Micheal Bloomberg isn't just the most execrable mayor in NYC history, he has been one of the biggest driving forces in bringing our economy to its knees. His Bloomberg media empire constantly pushed short term profits over long term security to bankers, brokers, and to CEOs in companies that actually produce value in the economy. If his media assets had acted rationally and responsibly, we would be in a much smaller economic whole.
GEORGE W. BUSH
The Iraq War has been a huge drag on our economy during its long, disgusting time. It also has massively increased our foreign debt, a major problem during a liquidity crisis. Bush's tax cuts for the rich financed massive speculation which expanded and burst several bubbles when the money should have gone to a better social safety net for middle class and poor Americans. This corrupt and unelected regime also refused to enforce the limited financial market regulations that hadn't been wiped out by the previous administration and its collaborators.
BILL CLINTON
This alleged "Democrat" pushed hard for financial deregulation which enabled the wave of irresponsible behavior on Wall St. The Internet bubble happened on his watch, and the economic conditions Clinton pushed created a climate for bubble hopping (dot coms to gold to real estate etc.,) which continued after his miserable presidency was cut off due to term limits. Clinton also made his top policy priority pushing corporate controlled trade initiatives such as NAFTA and the WTO which dramatically increased our trade deficits (causing massive borrowing from foreign interests). These corrupt trade arrangements shipped a lot of decent making jobs overseas, making it harder for Americans to afford mortgages. Bill Clinton's "welfare reform" created a climate of scapegoating for women of color which made it more socially acceptable for them to be targeted for predatory and downright fraudulent subprime mortgages.
HENRY PAULSON
This schmuck refused to take the regulatory responsibilities of Treasury Secretary even remotely seriously. Even worse were his actions as Goldman Sachs' CEO. In a previous posting, I quoted Naomi Klein on Democracy Now! Her quote is equally valid today.
NAOMI KLEIN: You know, Amy, I don’t think we can stress this enough. Henry Paulson is one of the key people, the top people, responsible for creating the crisis that he is now claiming he will solve, you know, and this is—if we think about the 9/11 analogy and, you know, the state of shock that Americans were in after 9/11 and the emergence of Rudy Giuliani as the savior—and, you know, people have so much regret about that. And in the book, I write about this as the state of regression that we go into when we’re frightened. And I think Henry Paulson has really been cast in this role as an economic Rudy Giuliani, saving the day, impartial, bipartisan, a strong leader.
I found this article in BusinessWeek that ran when Paulson was appointed to the Treasury, and I just want to read you one sentence, because I think it’s all we need to know about Henry Paulson. This is from BusinessWeek, when he got the appointment as Treasury Secretary in 2006. The headline of the article is “Mr. Risk Goes to Washington.” It says, “Think of Paulson as Mr. Risk. He’s one of the key architects of a more daring Wall Street, where securities firms are taking greater and greater chances in [their] pursuit of profits. By some key measures, the securities industry is more leveraged now than it was at the height of the 1990s boom.”
Then it goes on to say that when Paulson took over Goldman Sachs in 1999, they had $20 billion in debts. When he—in these high-risk gambles. When he left, they had $100 billion, which means he took their risk level from $20 billion to $100 billion. So it is absolutely no exaggeration to say that Henry Paulson, far from speaking for Main Street, is actually bailing out his colleagues for some of the very debts that he himself accumulated. This is an extraordinary conflict of interest.
I would say that a fox was watching the chicken coop, but foxes are too clever for this metaphor to really work.
LARRY SUMMERS
I still can't believe this sick joke is Obama's chief economic adviser. Summers was the architect of the economic equivalent of the Minnesota bridge collapse: Bill Clinton's trade and deregulation policies. Anyone who took the trouble of reading an American History book that covers the 20th Century would have known that unregulated financial markets were the main cause of the Crash of 1929, which was a major cause of the Great Depression. No responsible economist would have supported the lunatic economics of Bill Clinton's misadministration.
 

One of the reasons why FDR's New Deal was such a good deal for the country was that it included public works projects that enhanced economic growth for decades. If we are going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in a Stimulus Package as Obama would like us to do, that should include a major investment for public transportation, especially rail transit. This would accomplish the following for decades:
- Fight global warming
- Reduce stress for commuters
- Reduce our consumption of foreign oil, reducing trade deficits and foreign debt
- Fight the obesity epidemic, since car culture is more sedentary
- Put less money in the hands of fundamentalist regimes like the one in Saudi Arabia
The Transit Riders Alliance has a wonderful Action Alert on the subject. Here is the default text, which you should rewrite.
The right investment for our future is transit.
Make sure to include $48 billion for transit in the stimulus bill.. $48 billion would fund all transit projects that are ready to go over the next two years, according to the American Public Transportation Association.
A transit investment will reduce our business and energy costs in the long term, particularly for drivers who will enjoy less traffic congestion, by getting more riders onto public transportation.
And in the short term, these green construction jobs will get people working again.
Other infrastructure investments are not as economically powerful by reducing both transportation costs and energy costs.
Please note that the $5 billion for high-speed and intercity rail is on top of the $48 billion for transit. The times call for bold, innovative investments that will pay off in the long run.
Let me know if you will tell your leaders that you support $48 billion for transit in the stimulus.
Thank you.
Take Action to Support Public TransportationPlease also contact Change.gov to support funding for public transportation in the Stimulus Package.
Photos (top to bottom):
Brent and MariLynn
skew-t
andy in nyc

Image: ozma
Here are last year's top five censored news stories, according to Project Censored. You might also be interested in their Top 25 Censored Archive.
These lists of censored news stories should be cautionary to liberal bloggers. It is far too easy to let the subject matter of political blogs be driven too much by the corporate media, who themselves have a rightist bias.
1: Over One Million Iraqi Deaths Caused by US Occupation
Over one million Iraqis have met violent deaths as a result of the 2003 invasion, according to a study conducted by the prestigious British polling group, Opinion Research Business (ORB). These numbers suggest that the invasion and occupation of Iraq rivals the mass killings of the last century—the human toll exceeds the 800,000 to 900,000 believed killed in the Rwandan genocide in 1994, and is approaching the number (1.7 million) who died in Cambodia’s infamous “Killing Fields” during the Khmer Rouge era of the 1970s.
Read More
2: Security and Prosperity Partnership: Militarized NAFTA
Leaders of Canada, the US, and Mexico have been meeting to secretly expand the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with “deep integration” of a more militarized tri-national Homeland Security force. Taking shape under the radar of the respective governments and without public knowledge or consideration, the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP)—headquartered in Washington—aims to integrate the three nations into a single political, economic, and security bloc.
The SPP was launched at a meeting of Presidents George W. Bush and Vicente Fox, and Prime Minister Paul Martin, in Waco, Texas, on March 31, 2005. The official US web page describes the SPP as “. . . a White House-led initiative among the United States and Canada and Mexico to increase security and to enhance prosperity . . .” The SPP is not a law, or a treaty, or even a signed agreement. All these would require public debate and participation of Congress.
Read More
3: InfraGard: The FBI Deputizes Business
More than 23,000 representatives of private industry are working quietly with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to collect and provide information on fellow Americans. In return, members of this rapidly growing group, called InfraGard, receive secret warnings of terrorist threats before the public, and at times before elected officials. “There is evidence that InfraGard may be closer to a corporate Total Information Awareness program (TIPS), turning private-sector corporations—some of which may be in a position to observe the activities of millions of individual customers—into surrogate eyes and ears for the FBI,” according to an ACLU report titled “The Surveillance-Industrial Complex: How the American Government Is Conscripting Businesses and Individuals in the Construction of a Surveillance Society.”
Read More
4: ILEA: Is the US Restarting Dirty Wars in Latin America?
A resurgence of US-backed militarism threatens peace and democracy in Latin America. By 2005, US military aid to Latin America had increased by thirty-four times the amount spent in 2000. In a marked shift in US military strategy, secretive training of Latin American military and police personnel that used to just take place at the notorious School of the Americas, in Fort Benning, Georgia—including torture and execution techniques—is now decentralized. The 2008 US federal budget includes $16.5 million to fund an International Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA) in El Salvador, with satellite operations in Peru. With provision of immunity from charges of crimes against humanity, each academy will train an average of 1,500 police officers, judges, prosecutors, and other law enforcement officials throughout Latin America per year in “counterterrorism techniques.”
Read More
5 Seizing War Protesters’ Assets
President Bush has signed two executive orders that would allow the US Treasury Department to seize the property of any person perceived to, directly or indirectly, pose a threat to US operations in the Middle East.
The first of these executive orders, titled “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq,” signed by Bush on July 17, 2007, authorizes the Secretary of Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to confiscate the assets of US citizens and organizations who “directly or indirectly” pose a risk to US operations in Iraq. Bush’s order states:I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined 1) to have committed, or pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq . . . or 2) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order . . .
Read More
Commentary
Item 2
Lou Dobbs has gone on and on about a NAFTA highway. In the process, he has botched the real story here. That clown screws up everything he touches.
Item 3
The fact that the same corporations that own the government are supplying it with information on the private lives of Americans doesn't surprise me. However, that doesn't make it even slightly less dangerous.
Item 5
The policy of a possible seizure of assets of people who disagree with the Bush regime shows the growing totalitarianism in this country. No wonder the corporate media largely ignored this story.
Previous Censored News Stories:
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
I remember listening to Talk Back on WBAI a while back, and a caller had an excellent point on immigration. On a cold winter's day, he joked that a Jamaican like him certainly didn't come to New York for the weather. He left his homeland because of a lack of economic opportunity.
So much of the rhetoric on illegal immigration focuses on what pulls immigrants to the United States (jobs, more freedom, etc.). Little attention is paid to the factors that pressure people to risk their lives to illegally immigrate to the US. Policies which reduce those pressures would do more to reduce the levels of illegal immigration in this country than expanding failed approaches that focus on punishing desperate immigrants. Those policies are liberal ones.
Globalist trade policies are devastating the poor majority in Haiti. Raj Patel on Democracy Now! 7/31/08
And Haiti actually stands for a number of other countries in the Western Hemisphere, in Sub-Saharan Africa, in Asia, that have been forced to liberalize their economies and are now hostage to the international price rises. And in Haiti, the consequences were that the government was not allowed to support its rice producers. It wasn’t allowed to invest in agriculture. So, in the 1980s, Haiti produced the majority of its own rice, and now in Haiti almost all the rice comes from the United States. And that’s the sort of singular consequence of the intersection between free trade and—or so-called free trade and development policy in developing countries.
Trade policies which have destroyed Haitian agriculture, caused malnutrition, and impoverished Haitians have forced many people to go to the US illegally. The only alternative for many immigrants from that nation is starvation for themselves and their families. Yet, corporate media ignore the role of corporate controlled trade policies.
There also is a structural problem resulting from earlier events in Haitian history which contributes tremendously to the constant state of economic crisis in Haiti. In 1825, Haiti was forced to pay 90 million Francs to France to compensate that country for the slaves that the French would no longer own. In order to get its independence, Haiti had to pay the equivalent of over $20 billion today. Today's government spending in Haiti is currently under $250 million per year.
Juan Gonzalez on Democracy Now! pointed out in 2004 that "Haiti spent most of the 19th century paying off the reparations to France." That has kept the country from building wealth and created a cycle of debt that has kept Haiti economically hobbled.
If France would pay Haiti back for its reprehensible 19th century windfall, that would go a long way to giving Haiti a chance to repair the damage done to its economy.
Efforts by the elected government of Haiti to get justice from France and the general desire of the Bush regime to meddle in other countries' affairs led to a Franco American coup in 2004. Subsequent Haitians governments have kept quiet on the subject.
The coup illustrates an important point. People on the right often blame poverty in other nations on the policies of the governments there. This claim ignores how often rich countries intervene to prevent poor countries from acting in their national interests.
Haiti also has had food riots this year, which have led to political instability. The problem of skyrocketing food costs is hardly Haiti's alone, and the causes are mainly found in the policies of the Bush regime and a Congress too willing to act as a rubberstamp.
One of the biggest sources of food inflation is the much higher cost of petroleum. The main factor in increasing oil prices is instability due to the Bush regime's Iraqtastrophe and its threats against two other major oil producers, Iran and Venezuela. Oil prices have fallen somewhat, but nowhere near as far as they were a year ago. This is primarily due to a toning down of rhetoric by the Bush people during the election year and the Iraqi government's very public lobbying for a timetable for withdrawal of foreign troops form their country. Much of the corporate media's coverage has focuses on nameless faceless speculators as the cause of high oil and gas prices, but such coverage has ignored the geopolitical factors that are causing such rampant speculation in the first place. The spotlight is on symptoms, not root causes.
Another source of food instability for Haiti is the US push for biofuels. Biofuels are being sold as a cure all for energy independence and global warming. Much of the critique of biofuels has focuses on clearing land to produce such fuels. Even when biofuels come US corn repurposed from food to ethanol, biofuels don't do much to help fight climate change. Our methods of agriculture use a lot of CO2 emitting energy in order to produce the required fertilizer and pesticides.
Regardless of the effects of biofuels on the atmosphere, the increased demand for corn certainly is squeezing out food supplies for people in poor countries. Haiti, like so much of the world, suffers terribly from irresponsible policy decisions in Washington.
If you haven't learned about the effects of US policies on Haiti and Haitian immigration from corporate media outlets, you should consider the benefits to corporate interests in keeping you ill informed on the subject. Desperately poor Haitians are willing to work at very low wages, both in Haiti and in America. That means higher profits for corporations that exploit them.
We are constantly brainwashed to hit down at people whose only offense is being placed in a position to where they are forced to move to the US. We should be hitting up at the wealthy and corporate interests that are making Haitians miserable while ripping Americans off.
Instead of ranting and raving about illegal aliens like Lou Dobbs does, it would make much more sense to call for the World Trade Organization to be abolished and for countries like Haiti to have the opportunity to set rational trade policies in their own national interests. France should be pressured to pay up for what it owes Haiti. We need to redouble our efforts to call for an end to the occupation of Iraq and for an end to Bush-regime bullying of oil producing nations. Federal subsidies for biofuels should be abolished, and the money should be used for additional support to genuinely renewable energy sources (e.g., solar, geothermal, wind power) and to expand public transportation.
People should be migrating to the United States only because they really want to. It is the job of liberals to imagine and support policies that can actually make that come true.
Let's start with Riverwolf at IDiosyntocracy. Here is a listing of his blog postings on his personal boycott of the Blood Olympics.
Riverwolf's Boycott Diary
These postings not only show Riverwolf's concern about the issues involving the boycott of the smoggy games in Beijing, but they also serve as a teaching tool. His travails show how difficult it is for us to avoid buying Chinese products, an indictment of corporate betrayals of America, losses of US jobs to low wage labor in China, and the damage done to consumer choice by corrupt trade deals.
Coffee House Studio has a variety of posts which focus on the why of the boycott. Unlike some boycott advocates, he doesn't forget China's role in the violence in Zimbabwe.
It makes my pink heart proud that two queer bloggers have focused so much attention on such an important issue.
They put my one posting on why I'm boycotting the Olympics to shame. I would, however, like to make two quick points about the boycott.
Human rights are more important than spectator sports.
Boycotting the Blood Olympics is an important aspect of American liberals and progressives reacquainting themselves with the concept of solidarity.
Here are some other liberals and progressive bloggers who are boycotting the smoggiest Olympics on record.
Dave Chandler's Earthside.com
Resistance Studies
Constant Scholars
Starstattoo
I would also like to congratulate Britain's Liberal Democratic Party leader for calling on their Prime Minister Gordon Brown to boycott the closing ceremonies.
But Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has written to Mr Brown demanding that he boycott the event in protest at China's human rights record.
In a letter to the Prime Minister, he said China had promised to promote democracy and human rights if it was allowed to host the games.
Mr Clegg said: "It is now clear to me that China has made no progress on those promises. Indeed, the restrictions placed on journalists, the ongoing crackdown in Tibet and the treatment of individual Chinese protesters has worsened."
He added: "I therefore urge you not to attend the closing ceremony of the Beijing Games, or indeed any other ceremonies associated with them.
"Given China's utter failure to deliver on its human rights promises, it is simply untenable for any representative of the United Kingdom to give political endorsement to these Games."
The first eight reasons apply to people within the US and abroad, while the last two primarily relate to us American folk. I'm sure that there are more reasons to boycott that I have neglected to mention.
1) Dangerous and shoddy Chinese products
The fascist regime in China has very few workplace or consumer safety standards, and consumers around the world are suffering for it. Here in the US, the crappiest junk made in China is targeted towards 99 cent stores, who have a customer base that primarily is latino and black.
The US and Chinese governments needs to stop pandering to corporate interests and set up/enforce some real safety regulations.
2) China's Occupation of Tibet
China has no business occupying Tibet. They are different countries with dramatically different cultures. Obviously, the first responsibility of those of us from the US is to oppose the Bush/Clinton/Cheney/McCain occupation of Iraq. However, we also have a duty to show solidarity with the Tibetan people and their right to self determination.
The brutal crackdown against the Tibetan people ahead of the Olympics makes watching the Olympics morally unacceptable.
3) Lack of respect for the right of Taiwan to self-determination
Like the Bush regime, the Chinese fascists need to get over their imperial designs and their hegemonic behavior. Taiwan is a separate country from China in terms of actual facts on the ground, and the cultural landscapes are quite different considering Taiwan's lack of involvement in the Cultural Revolution and the influence of Taiwan's large indigenous population.
China's sabre rattling is irresponsible and counter productive. Let the Taiwanese make up their own damned minds.
4) Spectator sports promote obesity
One of the dirty secrets of the obsession with spectator sports is that it is sedentary and treats physical activity as something that can be experienced vicariously. It is far more athletic to take a leisurely stroll in the park than it is to watch the most talented and skilled athletes while sitting on your ass.
The Olympics could learn a lot from the Gay Games' open participation and emphasis on building grassroots athletic clubs.
5) Human rights violations inside China
Amnesty International has yet to call for a boycott, but their website gives plenty of grounds for such an action merely on their page for human rights violations in China.
Issues AI mentions include:
- Executions
- Abuse of human rights activists
- Censorship
6) China's Role in Darfur
Addiction to oil causes countries to do terrible things. In the case of China, their lust for Sudan's oil reserves has caused the fascist government to finance the Muslim fundamentalist regime in Sudan and that regime's genocide in Darfur. Save Darfur has called on Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies of the Olympics. They should take it one step further and call for people to skip the entire thing.
Save Darfur makes some good points, though.
The peacekeeping force, known as UNAMID, was authorized by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1769 on July 31, 2007. China was president of the Council at that time and pushed for the resolution's passage. Thus, after years of thwarting UN action against Sudan, China seemed to begin to play a modestly constructive role. China, itself, claimed credit for advancing peace and security for the people of Darfur.
Unfortunately, Beijing's assertion was both premature and inaccurate. The Government of Sudan has put up a series of obstacles to UNAMID's deployment. Even more dishearteningly, Sudan has again stepped up its campaign of terror in Darfur, destroying villages in West Darfur, killing innocent civilians, and displacing tens of thousands more. A robust peacekeeping force is an essential element of a strategy to stop the violence and allow people to return home.
In substantial part, Khartoum has been able to ignore the UN's will and continue its violent acts because of China's fierce diplomatic protection. Beijing helped strip sanctions language from UNAMID's authorizing resolution, signaling to Sudan that it could block deployment of the force with impunity. Soon after the resolution's passage, China also resumed its role as apologist for the actions of Khartoum at the United Nations.
As Sudan's largest economic partner, major military supplier, and chief diplomatic supporter, Beijing is in an unrivaled position to persuade Sudan to change its behavior. Beijing can use its vast influence to insist that Khartoum consents to the swift and effective deployment of UNAMID; that Khartoum halts its military operations, as well as those of the Janjaweed, that directly or indirectly target civilians; and that Khartoum engages constructively in the peace process. By not using that influence, China remains the primary enabler of the atrocities committed by the Government of Sudan against the people of Darfur.
7) China's Role in Zimbabwe
The Chinese government has sent arms to the brutal, and semi-dictatorial government in Zimbabwe. From the Independent 4/18/08:
A Chinese ship docked in Durban harbour late on Wednesday carrying three million rounds of ammunition for small arms, 3,500 mortar bombs and mortar tubes, as well as 1,500 rocket-propelled grenades, according to local media.
8) China's currency and trade policies
The fascist government is using predatory trade and currency policies which make the wealthy in China and abroad wealthier, but those policies create poverty and misery throughout the world. "Made in China" has become a global symbol of job losses and despair.
9) Right-wing Bias on NBC and MSNBC
The Beijing Olympics will be broadcast by General Electric's TV networks, including NBC and MSNBC. NBC News has a truly obnoxious pro-war and general rightist bias that fits too well with GE's profit motives for its war business. The same goes for the vast majority of programming on MSNBC. Watching the Olympics on GE's networks rewards them for their deceptive propagandizing of the American people.
10) GE's War Profits and Other Deeds
GE's networks propagandize for war largely because GE makes so much money off of war. From Responsible Shopper's Profile of GE.
• GE is responsible for toxic Superfund sites, knowingly exposing people to radioactive material, and has been fighting Superfund clean-up laws that hold the company accountable for damage caused by years of careless PCB dumping.
• GE has also secured millions of dollars in defense and military contracts, earning itself a place among notorious war profiteering companies.
• General Electric is the largest, most influential corporation in terms of revenue and scope of its media operations and ownership.
The full profile goes into much more detail. Boycotting their broadcasts of Olympic events is a way to turn an expensive investment (Olympic broadcasting fees) into a big dud.
All of the first eight items are valid arguments for a total boycott of products made in China. However, unpatriotic corporations in the US have shipped so much of our manufacturing base to China that it would be difficult to stop buying items made in China entirely. A good place to start is to look for "Made In China" labels and beginning to seek alternatives.
 
The Bush regime's corruption and efforts to attack middle class Americans are legendary. The latest example is a slimy trade deal they have struck with the corrupt, rightist government in Columbia.
Corporate controlled trade has played a significant role in America's current economic crisis. NAFTA, the WTO, and trade normalization with China have dramatically increased our budget deficits, which has increased our foreign debt. Much of our recession is based on a lack of credit, part of which is an inevitable result of too much previous borrowing.
The tens of millions of decent paying jobs lost to corporate controlled trade deals contribute dramatically to our economic downturn while dramatically lowering the quality of lives of far too many Americans. Please take action to stop Bush's efforts to play the Columbia FTA ("Free Trade" Agreement) scam on Congress. The House must vote soon, and it is of critical importance that they vote "NO."
AFL-CIO Action Alert
The AFL-CIO also has an important point in the default text, though it is never a good idea to quote word-for-word from default text in an Action Alert since it shows little effort or involvement in the issue.
Colombia is the most dangerous country in the world for a trade unionist--well over 2,000 union leaders and members have been murdered there since 1991. And the government routinely ignores or violates internationally recognized workers' rights.
Then, they insist on certain benchmarks for Colombia before the US should accept a deal, but I think they are making a mistake there. The whole point of the deal is to ship American jobs abroad. That is a bad thing to do regardless of what palliatives are added to the agreement. There is no such thing as a good "free trade" deal.
Americans for Democratic Action is opposing the FTC as well. Here are some points they made in their Action Alert email.
This trade agreement comes at a huge cost for Americans and Colombians alike, including major job loss, the decimation of family farmers, increased immigration and destruction of the environment. This agreement is modeled off much of the same flawed language found in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). We can only expect the results of the Colombia FTA to be the same.
For Americans, it means more losses in jobs and exports, decreased living standards for middle-class families, and a weaker domestic manufacturing base. For Colombians, it means more substandard wages, the destruction of their country's biodiversity, ruined livelihoods for family farmers, and an increased pressure to emigrate.
...
Trade isn't “free” when thousands are killed for standing up in the workplace, or when we destroy the most biodiverse regions on the earth. It isn't free when we lose thousands of Americans jobs so corporations can pay substandard wages across the border. These prices are simply too high.
...
The Colombia FTA is modeled after much of the same flawed language found in NAFTA and CAFTA, which resulted in major job loss, environmental degradation, decimation of family farmers and increased immigration.
More Contact info from ADA:
Capitol Switchboard
(202) 224-3121
www.congress.org
Here's the lead from the AP article:
McCain Advisers Lobbied for Airbus
By JIM KUHNHENN and MATTHEW DALY – Mar 11, 2008
WASHINGTON (AP) — Top current advisers to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign last year lobbied for a European plane maker that beat Boeing to a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract, taking sides in a bidding fight that McCain has tried to referee for more than five years.
Two of the advisers gave up their lobbying work when they joined McCain's campaign. A third, former Texas Rep. Tom Loeffler, lobbied for the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. while serving as McCain's national finance chairman.
The article caught on to part of the significance of the ties between John McCain and Airbus:
"The aesthetics are not good, especially since he is an advocate of reform and transparency," said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the aerospace consulting firm Teal Group. "Boeing advocates are going to use this as ammunition."
McCain, a longtime critic of influence peddling and special interest politics, has come under increased scrutiny as a presidential candidate, particularly because he has surrounded himself with advisers who are veteran Washington lobbyists. He has defended his inner circle and has emphatically denied reports last month in The New York Times and The Washington Post that suggested he helped the client of a lobbyist friend nine years ago.
Ties between "Keating Five" McCain and foreign lobbyists certainly do contradict McCain's facade as a reformer. Other articles have focused on the potential harm to McCain's campaign in communities where aerospace is a major employer.
McCain's ties to Airbus could cost him votes in Kansas
"Does tanker deal push Washington off McCain's map?"
Boeing certainly is a major employer in Washington and Kansas, and McCain's Airbus corruption could cost him votes. However, there is a broader pattern that is being missed by so many.
McCain's behavior is consistent of that of so many right-wing politicians to ship US jobs oversees.
Whether it is "Keating Five" McCain, the Clintons, the Bushes, or the rest of the corporate right, a huge priority has been to ship American jobs abroad with the two main goals.
1) Shifting jobs to lower wage markets.
2) Putting downward pressure on US wages.
These are the dots the corporate media don't want connected.
The Bush regime, blinded by corruption and rightist ideology, is pushing a stimulus plan with two main components. The first is a one time tax rebate of $300-$600 for all taxpayers. That is largely a smokescreen for the main point of the plan, another tax cut for the rich, in this case, tax cuts for business.
This makes little sense from an economic prospective. Bush's past tax cuts, focused primarily on the wealthy, have been followed with in the weakest economic recovery in US history. Their main impact on the economy, increasing the disparity between the rich on the one hand, and the middle class and the poor on the other, is largely responsible for our current economic crisis.
Lower real incomes for most Americans have resulted in an increasing reliance on debt. That debt reliance has become an acute problem now that the housing bubble has burst and people no longer can rely on home equity to buy more crap. Declining incomes have made people reliant on Wal-Mart and other retailers who export jobs out of the US.
Lost jobs and lowered income are not going to be addressed by a modest check from the government. People worried about losing their jobs will be too afraid to spend it on anything but servicing their debts. The only solution to the nation's economic insecurity is to provide more jobs.
In sound economic practice, deficit spending, as would take place in a stimulus plan, would be used for long-term investments in our economic future. Here is a two part plan which would provide real economic stimulus and help our economy grow later on.
1) There should be a bridge-reinforcing plan with immediate funding. This would provide for decent-paying jobs and save the public sector money in the long term.
2) There should be a subway/mass transit building/expansion program with immediate funding. This again would provide good jobs, especially in the hurting construction sector. It also would diminish our dependency on foreign oil and reduce our trade deficits, the latter which are contributing to our country's debt crisis. The reductions in Global Warming will be of future economic benefit as well.
The historical record has shown us that public works programs are the most effective economic stimulus programs. It's time the politicians in Washington learn from history.
Pride at Work sent an email notifying people about the United Steelworkers "Stop Toxic Imports" campaign. Here is info from www.stoptoxicimports.org.
On Wednesday, Jan. 16, members of the United Steelworkers and its allies will take its “Stop Toxic Imports” campaign to the nation’s policymakers. In this National Day of Action, the union will demand that Congress take immediate action to protect Americans from the dangerous threat posed by the millions of lead-laced toys and other unsafe products infiltrating our country.
The USW will be joined by dozens of allied community, environmental and health organizations from across the country, as well as the AFL-CIO and other labor groups.
“The massive toy recalls this holiday season drew attention to the much larger problem of the countless dangerous imports – tires, toothpaste, fake drugs, pet food – making their way on to U.S. store shelves,” said USW President Leo W. Gerard, who has spearheaded the USW “Protect Our Kids – Stop Toxic Imports” campaign. “People are starting to realize that we’re paying the price for cheap, imported goods so corporations can make bigger profits. It’s time for our policymakers to fix this broken trade system, repair our regulatory agencies and protect our jobs and families.”
The USW is calling for support for the U.S. Food and Product Responsibility Act, introduced in the Senate by Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and in the House by Rep. Pete Visclosky, D-Ind. This legislation would safeguard Americans against toxic food and products by shifting the responsibility on to the backs of the companies producing the goods and the importers importing them.
Showing just how far he will go to pander to Bush, Charles Schumer joined almost every Republican voting and far too many "Democrats" in passing the corporate-controlled trade deal with Peru.
Never mind that the deal with eliminate American jobs and dramatically increase poverty in Peru. All Schumer cares about are big money donations from the rich and corporate interests. The 77-18 vote is a terrible indication of the pervasiveness of corruption in the Senate, and Schumer is one of the worst pigs at the campaign contribution trough.
If politicians like Schumer actually cared about middle class and poor people, they would be working to repeal corporate trade deals, not pass more of these attacks on the non-rich.
This is another excellent reason to boycott the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which is headed by Charles "Loves Torture" Schumer.
Express your outrage to the DSCC!
