The Global Magazine Of Liberally Applied Critical Examination
The rise of the Tea Party movement has been quite fast. In less than a year they have (with the help of Fox News and Freedom Works) become a force that many Republicans feel they need to court in order to win in November of the this year. But even with the organization and promotion help they received, there had to be a group that could be molded and promoted in the first place.
There is a lot of talk about the apparent racist aspect of the Tea Party participants. However if there was that big and cohesive a racist feeling in the nation, then various white power groups would have been a major force long before this. Instead of being a motivating factor I think that racism is a side symptom which Progressives are so tuned in to seeing that it obscures what might be the more functional roots of this movement.
"Originally posted at The Seminal
Let’s take a look at who the Tea Party members are. It is true they are overwhelmingly white, but they are also overwhelmingly male, and have attended college. They also tend to be from more rural parts of the nation and skew older. Basically, you can describe them as the conservative wing of the Baby Boomers.
By David Swanson
Let me get this straight. The Senate will pass a public option if the House will. And the House will, because it already did. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi won’t allow it. So the mortal enemy of public-option backers is . . . Dennis Kucinich.
Why? Because when Congressman Kucinich said he'd stand for a public option he stupidly thought he was supposed to mean it.
Let's review a brief history of the disease known as "health insurance reform."
When the president and the speaker of the House thought it would be strategic to censor any talk of single-payer healthcare, almost every member of Congress and almost every astroturfing party-before-country activist group and labor union, and almost every follower of those groups, fell obediently into line. "We'll open the debate with the least we'll settle for, a pathetic token public-option," they thought cleverly, rubbing their hands together. "Then we'll compromise down from there."
By David Swanson
As long as we're going to dump most of our money into wars and the military and Wall Street and health insurance bailouts, students are going to have to go into debt to afford college. But it would cost the students less and the government less, if private companies were not permitted to act as middlemen profiting off public loans to students.
One of the companies so profiting, Sallie Mae, is based here in Virginia and funnels millions of dollars from its profits into lobbying to make sure the free money keeps flowing. Senators Warner and Webb have chosen to side with the parasites rather than the students, but disguised their choice as one of concern for jobs, the jobs of the loan sharks who could find respectable work in a better educated society. I grew up in Reston, where Sallie Mae's jobs are, and I know there are people there who will find a way to publicly say thank you for Sallie Mae's help in driving our nation deeper into ignorance and debt.
In a lengthy interview on Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman, Congressman Dennis Kucinich explained why he would not vote for the present health care bill and defended his position against attacks from people on the left like Markos Moulitsas. He also spoke about the subjects of Afghanistan, campaign finance, and the passing of activist Granny D.
I mean, I have a responsibility to take a stand here on behalf of those who want a public option. There’s about thirty-four members of the Senate, at least, who have signed on to saying they support a public option. If I were to just concede right now and say, “Well, you know, whatever you want. All this pressure’s building. Just forget about it,” actually weakens every last-minute bit of negotiations that would try to improve the bill. So I think that it’s really critical to take this stand, because without it, there’s no real control over premiums. Without it, we have nothing in the bill except the privatization of our healthcare system.
Originally published at TomDispatch.com
We’ve now been at war with, or in, Iraq for almost 20 years, and intermittently at war in Afghanistan for 30 years. Think of it as nearly half a century of experience, all bad. And what is it that Washington seems to have concluded? In Afghanistan, where one disaster after another has occurred, that we Americans can finally do more of the same, somewhat differently calibrated, and so much better. In Iraq, where we had, it seemed, decided that enough was enough and we should simply depart, the calls from a familiar crew for us to stay are growing louder by the week.
The Iraqis, so the argument goes, need us. After all, who would leave them alone, trusting them not to do what they’ve done best in recent years: cut one another’s throats?
Modesty in Washington? Humility? The ability to draw new lessons from long-term experience? None of the above is evidently appropriate for “the indispensable nation,” as former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright once called the United States, and to whose leaders she attributed the ability to “see further into the future.” None of the above is part of the American arsenal, not when Washington’s weapon of choice, repeatedly consigned to the scrapheap of history and repeatedly rescued, remains a deep conviction that nothing is going to go anything but truly, deeply, madly badly without us, even if, as in Iraq, things have for years gone truly, deeply, madly badly with us.
Cross posted from Border Jumpers, Danielle Nierenberg and Bernard Pollack.
While in Harare, Zimbabwe, we met with the Labour and Economic Development Research Institute of Zimbabwe (LEDRIZ), an initiative of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) which started operating in September of 2003. The research institute's primary objective to develop, through research, well-grounded policy positions designed to influence development processes and outcomes at the national, regional and international levels. This is particularly important in the context of globalization where national policy is increasingly giving way to regional and international developments. In this regard, the ability to anticipate developments will help in designing proactive policies that respond promptly to external challenges.
LEDRIZ shared with us the training and research materials and documents they use in training programs throughout the country around the "8 Socio-Economic Rights.’ Rather than directly endorsing political candidates, ZCTU advocates for democracy and good governance in Zimbabwe. LEDRIZ is strategically positioning itself to be part of every major economic policy debate in Zimbabwe, an impressive feat given the tight autocratic rule President Mugabe maintains over the country. In addition, LEDRIZ is fighting hard to establish progressive policies such as opposing the privatization of public utilities, providing support for the informal sector, protecting workers' pensions and their ability to retire with dignity.
In establishing an aligned research institute, the labor movement in Zimbabwe is following the examples of the US, European, South African and Namibian trade unions. Such a research think-tank is particularly helpful in an economy like Zimbabwe's which has experienced a wrenching brain drain, undermining capacity. The main strength of LEDRIZ is that it is a member of several national, regional and international networks such as the Alternatives to Neo-liberalism in Southern Africa (ANSA) which it coordinates; the African Labour Research Network (ALRN); and the Global Union Research Network (GURN), launched in January 2004 under the coordination of the ILO Bureau of Workers’ Activities and the International Trade Union Council (ITUC).
Cross posted from Border Jumpers, Danielle Nierenberg and Bernard Pollack.
Imagine being one of only five opposition voices in a country of thirteen million people, where all radio, print and television is strictly controlled by the government. That's Ben Madzimure’s uphill battle everyday as editor of "The Worker," the voice of the labor movement, in Zimbabwe--especially because his newspaper is only printed once a month, with only 5,000 copies distributed throughout the country.
"Zimbabwe used to have such a vibrant and independent media but most of the press was shut down," said Madzimure. Today many of the print reporters across the country bite their tongues and print the government's viewpoint. Madzimure, on the other hand, actively seeks out stories the government doesn't want mentioned, such as worker discontent and political corruption, and provides an unfiltered analysis of current events.
With Karl Rove arrogantly proclaiming not only that he did nothing wrong, but that he is very much on the correct side of history, it is interesting to look back and see how he would fare in accordance with the standards of his first political hero, Richard M. Nixon.
As a young man growing up in Salt Lake City, Rove adhered strongly to the Nixon Vietnam position. He accepted Nixon’s position of demonizing opponents of the Vietnam War, including questioning their patriotism.
After Nixon’s death progressive historians asserted that Nixon and his administration’s foot soldiers demeaned true patriotism by embracing a narrow standard wherein, if they failed to support a flag waving posture operating lockstep within Nixon’s narrow dogma relating to Vietnam, they were labeled as unpatriotic.
Like so many of Nixon’s stalwart young supporters, including of William Kristol, Dick Cheney and others, Rove had no stomach for traveling to Southeast Asia and fighting for a cause he verbally supported.
By David Swanson
Sixty-five congress members, including 60 Democrats and 5 Republicans, voted to end the occupation of Afghanistan on Wednesday. But 356 congress members, including 189 Democrats and 167 Republicans voted to keep the war going. The vote followed three hours of debate created by Congressman Dennis Kucinich's introduction of a privileged resolution.
The debate featured three leaders from three groups of congress members: the war opponents (almost all Democrats), the pro-war Democrats, and the pro-war Republicans. Given this alignment, which has existed for nearly a decade now, is there any reason for supporters of peace and justice to take heart? I think so. Here's why: If the 60 Democrats acted in good faith and would have voted the same way even if the bill had a chance of passing, or even if that could be said of only 38 of them, then we may very well see funding of the wars dry up. If the leadership includes unrelated measures in the next war funding bill ($33 billion coming in April or May), measures that lead all the Republicans to vote No (as happened last July), then only 38 Democrats have to vote No to block the bill.
Cross posted from Border Jumpers, Danielle Nierenberg and Bernard Pollack.
It's hard to believe that more than 90 percent of the workforce in Zimbabwe are part of the informal sector. These workers do everything from selling bananas and playing music to selling stone carvings and other crafts. Unfortunately because they are not considered part of the formal economy, they are often the most exploited—or ignored—by the government. As a result, in 2002, they formed the Zimbabwe Chamber of Informal Economy Associations (ZCIEA), an associate of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU), to help gain a voice for their members in government.
These workers, who traditionally competed against each other and with the formal sector —are now coordinated and working together to tackle pressing issues such as social security, disability benefits, improved infrastructure, working conditions, and many others.
The Informal Economy is being helped by ZCTU together with their elected leadership to lobby legislators to change the laws to that they become user friendly.
There are two signs over the Dogs desk; one reads;
“The man that favors the ideal over the real learns to achieve not his salvation but his ruin”
the other reads
“Ideals must be defended with idealism”.
Yes, they seem to contradict each other yet to me they are the essence of politics and policy.
Originally posted at Squarestate.net
On the one hand, when we are talking about policy, there is the need to get things done, to make progress on the issues, even if we don’t finish them in this fight. If there is not a pressing need, then the issue should not be the focus of political and legislative policy, so by definition if an issue is being worked on it has a real world impact for real people. This generally means that doing nothing is unacceptable. Trying and failing often means that nothing will change, and the damage (whatever it may be) that is spurring the debate will continue.
Liberally Critical Thinking News, policy analysis and context Social and political commentary To inform and provoke |
Click play to watch the most recent video posted to YouTube by The Real News, then mouse over the screen and the thumbnail images at the bottom to choose from their latest videos.
