U.S. public libraries: We lose them at our peril - Los Angeles Times

U.S. public libraries: We lose them at our peril - Los Angeles Times

McChrystal Drama is Sideshow; Can Obama define a realistic Goal? | Informed Comment

McChrystal Drama is Sideshow; Can Obama define a realistic Goal? | Informed Comment

In short, Karzai appears to be attempting to strike a deal with the very Taliban and insurgents that Obama says he is pledged to uproot and destroy.

How can that make sense?

How indeed, unless Karzai is so much Bush's man that he would rather lose the war than see a Democrat win it.

Texas State Board of Education approves new curriculum standards | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Texas Regional News

Texas State Board of Education approves new curriculum standards | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Texas Regional News

U.S. and its history as a “Christian land governed by Christian principles.”

The United States Constitution was not handed by God to George Washington on Mt. Sinai. It was written by a groups of "We the people" (including a lot of Deists and Unitarians like Benjamin Franklin) for six specific purposes, which I had to memorize when I went to school.

Isn't it about time students had to memorize the Preamble to the Constitution again, instead of saying the Protestant Lord's Prayer in public school?

U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric - NYTimes.com

U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric - NYTimes.com

It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said.

Really? Are you sure?

Didn't Robert Ford collect a reward for shooting Jesse James in the back of the head?

Robert Ford, it was a fact,
shot Jesse in the back,
while Jesse hung a picture on the wall.

- The Ballad of Jesse James

Meanwhile here's the Republican criticism of Obama's move (from the same story as above):

A former senior legal official in the administration of George W. Bush said he did not know of any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former president.

WELL, WHY THE &%$#! NOT!!!

Bush was swaggering around shouting "Wanted: Dead or Alive" but not really doing anything.

At least now we have a president who's going to act more than he talks.

Ephphatha Poetry: "Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black" - Tim Wise

Ephphatha Poetry: "Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black" - Tim Wise

Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters —the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protester — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that’s what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation’s capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country’s political leaders if the need arose

It goes on, but you get the point. Or you should.

Ron Paul: President Obama Is Not A Socialist | TPMDC

Ron Paul: President Obama Is Not A Socialist | TPMDC

"The question has been raised about whether or not our president is a socialist," Paul said. "I am sure there are some people here who believe it. But in the technical sense, in the economic definition of a what a socialist is, no, he's not a socialist."

"He's a corporatist," Paul continued. "And unfortunately we have corporatists inside the Republican party and that means you take care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country."

Finally, a sane voice in the Republican Party. Too bad they won't listen to him.

If at First You Don’t Succeed, Hope for Activist Judges

If at First You Don’t Succeed, Hope for Activist Judges

The attorneys general offer no serious rebuttal to this reality that Congress has sweeping authority to enact economic regulation, and a requirement that all Americans be insured is economic in nature. Instead, they claim that health reform is unconstitutional merely because it is unusual. In the words of Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, “at no time in our history has the government mandated its citizens buy a good or service.”

Cuccinelli is not telling the truth. President George Washington signed the Second Militia Act of 1792, which required a significant percentage of the U.S. civilian population to purchase—at their own expense—“a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack” along with various other items they would need if the president ever called them up to serve in the militia. Many of the members of Congress who voted to enact this law were also members of the Philadelphia Convention that wrote the Constitution itself.

Granted that Qadhdhafi is a nutcase, but Arab nationalism just can't work.

It's time to abolish the Arab League | Muslims Debate

In 2009, Gaddafi stormed out of the Doha Summit after he denounced King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia as a "British product, and [an] American ally." When Shaikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani of Qatar tried to rein him in, the Libyan responded: "I am an international leader, the dean of the Arab rulers, the king of kings of Africa and the imam of Muslims, and my international status does not allow me to descend to a lower level." In Sirte, Gaddafi took aim at the Qatari's weight, declared that Shaikh Hamad was "better than [him] at filling a void," before bursting into laughter. A few years ago, he told summiteers in Algeria that Palestinians and Israelis were "stupid" and that Israel should be invited to join the League. He even coined the term Isratine, Israel and Palestine, in the Oz-like fantasy land he envisaged.

"The Arabs have agreed to disagree." has been attributed to ibn Khaldun. I don't know if the attribution is correct, but the saying is certainly true.

It's about time!

Pakistan's Army takes control of al-Qaeda cave network on Afghan border - Times Online

Pakistani forces have taken control of a warren of caves that served until recently as the nerve centre of the Taleban and al-Qaeda and sheltered Ayman al-Zawahiri, the second-in-command to Osama bin Laden.

Let's hope this good news can continue!

For those disappointed by Obama - it's 1965 all over again.

Cyrus Roberts Vance, Lieutenant, United States Navy & Public Official

This, in a nutshell, was the unself-conscious voice of the establishment - the one that Jimmy Carter ran against so vigorously that his campaign manager, Hamilton Jordan, once said: "If, after the inauguration, you find a Cy Vanceas secretary of state and Zbigniew Brzezinski as head of national security, then I would say we failed. And I'd quit.''

Mr. Vance was Mr. Carter's first appointee, followed soon after by Mr. Brzezinski. Mr. Jordan did not quit.

I remember that. I learned a big and important lesson about American politics.

If you didn't figure out then that the "outsider" and "independent" candidates are set up, or you weren't born yet, figure it out now. Obama was never the revolutionary (much less the Marxist or Muslim terrorist) the Republican party tried to portray him as.

You can get some change in the system. You can't overthrow the system. Nor should you. Few people really won when the Western Roman Empire fell. Not even most of the barbarians.

You get a choice of two candidates, and some protest votes, in most US elections. You have to choose the lesser evil. Obama was the lesser evil last time, not the second coming. And not the anti-Christ.

If you want to get angry about something, get angry about having your choice revoked.

McCain proffered an insurance mandate with no public option. That's the bogus plan they got in Massachusetts that they are rebelling against.

Obama offered a public option with no mandate.

So what are we about to get if we don't get active? What we voted against.

Anyone else remember 1964? We voted for a candidate who promised not to bomb North Vietnam over a candidate who promised to bomb.

What did we get? Carpet bombing, and a massive antiwar movement, and massive disgust with the government that lasted decades, from the credibility gap to Watergate to today's anti-government militants.

Don't let them take the public option away!! It's too important, not just for itself, but for democracy.

Legislation, smegislation! We need a Constitutional Amendment!

Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision - Yahoo! News

As noted by the Post's Dan Eggen, the poll's findings show "remarkably strong agreement" across the board, with roughly 80% of Americans saying that they're against the Court's 5-4 decision. Even more remarkable may be that opposition by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were all near the same 80% opposition range. Specifically, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed it. In short, "everyone hates" the ruling.

The poll's findings could enhance the possibility of getting a broad range of support behind a movement in Congress to pass legislation that would offset the Court's decision.

We need a Constitutional Amendment that says corporations are not "persons" in terms of the Constitution, before one decides it's over 35 and runs for president.

When another corporatist Supreme Court invalidated the income tax, people didn't wring their hands and passed legislation. They passed and ratified the 16th Amendment.

What is wrong with Congress that they don't get this? Everyone else seems to.

Finally, the US is really going after the enemy

Exclusive: Another Taliban Leader Captured in Pakistan - Declassified Blog - Newsweek.com

Another leader of the Afghan Taliban has been captured by authorities in Pakistan working in partnership with U.S. intelligence officials. Taliban sources in the region and a counterterrorism officials in Washington have identified the detained insurgent leader as Mullah Abdul Salam, described as the Taliban movement's "shadow governor" of Afghanistan's Kunduz province.

Harry Shearer: Wait a Minute -- If It's a War, Aren't You Supposed to Kill Them?

Harry Shearer: Wait a Minute -- If It's a War, Aren't You Supposed to Kill Them?

Last time I looked, if it's a war and you find an enemy on the battlefield, you kill him. That's pretty much the definition of what war is. You detain those who choose to surrender. Opting in the first instance to detain and interrogate someone, on the other hand, is what you're doing if you're running a criminal investigation. Oops.

Isn't it about time we forgot about this false dichotomy? The opposite of war is peace, not law enforcement. The opposite of law enforcement is crime, not war. There are even hybrid categories, like "war crime" and "illegal war" that would be especially appropriate in this instance.

In the struggle against al-Qa'ida there is a place for war and a place for law enforcement. There is even a place to combine them. War crimes should be prosecuted on both sides impartially. If you want to detain someone indefinitely just declare them a PoW. If you want to convict someone and put them in prison, get the evidence and bring them to court. If you want to try them in a military tribunal, declare them a war criminal. In this case we have a choice.

Lawrence O'Donnell Rages On Bush Speechwriter Marc Thiessen: 'Your Administration Invited The First Attack' (VIDEO)

Anyone else remember "Bin Ladin determined to attack inside the US"? The Bush administration was warned about al-Qa'ida and ignored all warnings. The Republican line was "Wag the Dog", that this was just a phony scare used by the Democrats to distract the nation from the all-important Monica Lewinsky "zippergate" scandal that was so important to them. Now they pretend that torture works.

You know what? The guy that tortured Sayyid Qutb thought he prevented a plot to flood the Nile Delta and kill millions of people.

They guys who tortured Muslim Brothers after the attempted assassination of Nasser thought they prevented plots to kill every Arab leader in the world.

Have these Republicans no sense of shame? Are they really stupid enough to believe their propaganda? Or are they just convinced Americans are that stupid?

Lawrence O'Donnell Rages On Bush Speechwriter Marc Thiessen: 'Your Administration Invited The First Attack' (VIDEO)

How to tell if your Senator reads your letter

Here's an actual letter, with my actual name, but the Senator's deleted:

Dear Dr. Ph.D.:

Thank you for taking the time to write and share your views with me. Your comments will help me continue to represent you and other Californians to the best of my ability. Be assured that I will keep your views in mind as the Senate considers legislation on this or similar issues.

If you would like additional information about my work in the U.S. Senate, I invite you to visit my website, http://[deleted].senate.gov. From this site, you can send a message to me about current events or pending legislation, access my statements and press releases, request copies of legislation and government reports, and receive detailed information about the many services that I am privileged to provide for my constituents. You may also wish to visit http://thomas.loc.gov to track current and past federal legislation.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I appreciate hearing from you.

Good advice for Dems from Bernie Sanders

Blueprint for Dems

In my view, the Democrats--including the president--have absurdly continued to stumble along the path of "bipartisanship" at exactly the same time the Republicans have waged the most vigorous partisan and obstructionist strategy in recent history. . . .
§ Perhaps most important, let Obama be Obama. Bring back one of the great inspirational leaders of our time, who is more than capable of taking on the powerful special interests and rallying the American people toward a progressive agenda and a more just society. . . .
§ Pass the strongest healthcare reform legislation as soon as feasible - making it clear that it will be significantly improved in the near future. . . .
§ Pass a major bill that creates millions of new jobs rebuilding our infrastructure and moving our energy system in a different and sustainable direction. . . .
§ Pass legislation allowing workers to have the right to join unions without unfair and illegal opposition from their employers. . . .
§ Boldly address the economic and financial crisis, which has left 17 percent of our workforce unemployed or underemployed. . . .

Should there be a state of emergency in Jos?

allAfrica.com: Nigeria: Jos - Senate Rejects Motion for State of Emergency

When Senate President David Mark put the question majority of senators voted against it. The Senate however resolved that the Plateau State Government and other relevant security agencies should "Fish out the perpetrators and sponsors of this latest act of violence and bring them to book to serve as deterrent to others with similar tendencies."

Good background on the riots from Al Jazeera English

Al Jazeera English - Africa - Clashes near Nigerian city of Jos

Charles Dokubo, from the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, told Al Jazeera: "There is more than the religious aspect of it. There are two communities - one that call themselves settlers and one that call themselves indigenous communities.

"The crisis in the north started with the creation a local government."

Dokubo said that Muslim settlers were to manage the government, which was unacceptable to the indigenous Christian community who consider them non-citizens.

"The main cause of the crisis is about administration and the place where people belong."

The only correction I would add is that the indigenes don't consider them non-citizens, rather they consider them strangers or guests (same concept in Africa) and they believe they should have the rights of guests, not of indigenous people, or "sons of the soil" in African terms.

Great post from Juan Cole

Critics of Obama often charge him with failing to end the Iraq War. But there is no longer an Iraq War. There are US bases in a country where indigenous forces are still fighting a set of low-intensity struggles, with little US involvement. Obama is having his troops leave exactly as quickly as the Iraqi parliament asked him to.

Why is there no left in the United States?

That's the question.

There is no Socialist, Communist or Labor Party in the United States. Those parties are what pass for left in other countries, and every country that allows them has them. Except the United States. In the US, liberal Democrats are the left. In the UK, or Germany, they are the center. In Japan they are the right, although their policies are little different from those of American liberal Democrats. Even Canada has Liberals in the center, Conservatives on the right, and the Socialist International member New Democratic Party on the left. That's what is meant when it is said that the United States is a Center-Right country. Not that the American left can't take power, but that the American left is anyone else's center.

"Here's the latest book about it.

I. DEFINITION

The first thing we need to do is define "Socialist" in this context. Just to be fair, even to the crazy wingnuts who insist that liberalism = Socialism = Communism = Naziism, we will take a very broad, multi-definition approach.

1. Any member party of the Socialist International qualifies as Socialist. Any member of such a Party would qualify as a Socialist. That makes everyone from Nelson Mandela to Tony Blair a Socialist. Of course, in the context of the British Labor Party a "Socialist" is something more, but I don't speak British, and you probably don't either. D-Kos certainly isn't written in British.

2. If that's not broad enough for you, let's include anyone who self-identifies as Socialist. That includes Hugo Chavez's Bolivarian Socialism, even though he and his party aren't in the Socialist International. Just to make the wingnuts happy we can even include Hitler here, despite the fact that the German Social Democrats, the real German Socialist Party, was the one and only political party that actually voted against Hitler taking power in Germany. That even includes the Communists, who commonly denounced the Socialists as "Social Fascists" or worse. It's only in the United States that "Socialist" is an epithet instead of a description, and where "Red States" are on the right, not the left.

II. THE REAL AMERICAN SOCIALISTS

Once upon a time, there was a real Socialist Party in the United States. In 1912 they got 6% of the vote for President, elected two Congressional Representatives, and had dozens of mayors from Reading, Pennsylvania to Berkeley, California. This story has to be about what happened to them. They began declining, either in 1912 (when they purged their left wing), or in 1917 (when two Communist Parties split off) or in the 1930s (they had a brief resurgence in the Depression and got 2.2% of the presidential vote in 1932), but by the 1950s, instead of fusing with the Democrats as the Populists had, the Socialists had dwindled into insignificance, and no longer bothered with their presidential campaign. The Party suffered a three way split over the Vietnam War, but remained insignificant and relatively unknown to today. The graveyard of third parties in Jon Stewart's America: A Guide to Democracy Inaction ignores them, though it includes the Anti-Masons, and even the Communists, who never reached anywhere near the size of the Socialists.

III. WHY THE DEMOCRATS ARE NOT THE SOCIALISTS (a brief aside):

It should be obvious that the Democrats are not the Socialists by now, if you hadn't figured that out from being a Democrat yourself. However, here's further proof if your wingnut friends and relatives don't get it.

When the Socialists split three ways over the Vietnam War, two of the successor groups, the Social Democrats U.S.A. (SDUSA) and the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC, which later merged with the New American Movement to form the Democratic Socialists of America, DSA) thought the Democratic Party should become the Socialist Party in the United States. They were both attracting some support back in the '80s. Congressman Ron Dellums ("Berkeley's Red Congressman" to the Republicans) joined DSA, while Senator Moynihan of New York would address SDUSA meetings and talk about how we had to take back the word "Socialism" from the Communists. But he never actually joined SDUSA.

Moderate Democrats, led by the then unknown governor of the obscure state of Arkansas, William Jefferson Clinton, were alarmed. They formed an organization you're all familiar with, the Democratic Leadership Council, (DLC) to counter the Socialist argument that the Democrats should move left and declare themselves the Socialist Party in the United States. Clinton rode his DLC and its opposition to Socialism all the way to the White House. The Democratic Socialists are today totally marginalized, and there's a good possibility that the Social Democrats don't even exist. Of course it didn't stop a certain Lush Windbag from calling Clinton a Socialist, but that just shows how marginal the real Socialists are from the American political conversation. I think everyone here knows the DLC, but their former nemeses are largely forgotten. Dems are blue, not red. (Thanks to John Yossarian for reminding us that the DSA still exists. I think most people even here were unaware of them.)

Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont did say, in response to Amy Goodman's direct question on DemocracyNow, that he considered himself a Democratic Socialist, but he runs as an independent, just like Joe Lieberman. The Dems don't run anyone against him because otherwise the Republicans might take his seat. He caucuses with the Democrats, again like Joe Lieberman does, because, hey, who's he gonna caucus with? Himself? But he's not really a Democrat. Just ask him. Or ask the Democrats. Especially the DLC.

V. SO WHAT WAS THIS SOCIALIST PARTY, ANYWAY?

Populists who wouldn’t “fuse”?

A. Yes and no. Some Populists who wouldn't fuse with the Democrats did wind up in the Socialist Party, but others left politics altogether. If it had been the anti-fusion wing of the Populists it would have been stronger in North Carolina, where the Populists were cooperating with the Republicans rather than the Democrats. Although the Socialist Party did have strength among tenant farmers it was more of a working people's party than the Populists, who were basically an agrarian movement.

“Debs for president” movement?

A. Again, yes and no. Debs was a charismatic speaker who attracted strong personal support. Many people say he created and dominated the party the way George Wallace did the American Independent Party or H. Ross Perot the Reform Party. Then without Debs the Socialists collapsed. But there was always more to the Socialist Party than Debs. They didn't even nominate him in 1916 (and went down in the presidential polls). He had to fight with the other tendencies in the party for his own ideas. And Norman Thomas was a famous national figure running as the Socialist Party's presidential candidate for many decades afterwards.

A branch of the German Social Democratic Party?

A. Again, yes and no. The Wisconsin Party, centered in Milwaukee, could well be characterized that way, and the Party had so many German immigrant members that they were vilified as agents of the Kaiser for refusing to support American entry into World War I. But there were many such immigrant language federations in the Socialist Party, not just Germans, and there were significant groups of native-born Americans in it. The Party got its highest percentage of votes for president in 1912 in Oklahoma and Nevada, neither then known for its German immigrant population.

Extreme of Progressive movement?

A. Again, yes and no. The moderate wing of the SP, the so-called "slowcialists", rubbed up against the left wing of the progressive movement. But there were real philosophical differences between them. Walter Lippmann worked on a Socialist campaign in 1912, and wrote a famous letter asking what was the difference between Socialists and Democrats if the party abandoned its ultimate goal of transforming the economy. He never got an answer and switched to the Democrats.

“Wild west” near anarchist miners?

A. Again, yes and no. The left wing of the Socialist Party was the IWW, centered in the west and with a core of hard-rock miners. The IWW itself was split between Socialists and Anarchists so badly they passed a resolution telling political and anti-political activists to shut up during union meetings. The right wing of the Socialist Party decided this was an anarchist takeover of the IWW and used it as an excuse to purge the "Wobblies" from the Party. But the western, nearly anarchist wing of Socialism was still very strong.

different parties in every state?

A. Yeah, I have to go along with that one. It's often said that the United States doesn't have two national parties, only two coalitions of fifty different state parties that get together once every four years to fight. The Socialists were no different. The Oklahoma sodbuster tenant farmers were very different from the brewery workers in Milwaukee. The New York Jewish Socialists were very different from miners in Goldfield Nevada. Once every four years they got together to nominate someone for president, who was usually Gene Debs. But not always.

They were all of the above - and probably more!



V. SO WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS SOCIALIST PARTY, ANYWAY?

1. America's two party system?

Maybe the fact that the presidential system and one seat constituencies forces the American political landscape into two parties caused the Socialists to go the way of every other third party since the Civil War? Canada has a Socialist Party (the New Democrats) but they have a three party system. So do most European countries, with a liberal party, a conservative party and a socialist or labor party.

But why not a two party system with Socialists and Liberals, like Japan had with its 1955 system ? Some people argue that the real question is not the weakness of the American left, but the strength of the right. Without an established church or feudal privilege to defend the US right is unburdened by any of the baggage that helped the left grow in other countries.

The relatively high US standard of living?

Yeah, right, like that's still true. < / sarcasm> Sure, it was once, but that was then. This is now. Besides, the relative gap between classes is greater in the US than in any other developed country. So I can't believe this explanation. I really wonder if I can take it seriously.

Social divisions within the working class?

Americans are divided by religion, race, ethnicity, region, etc. etc. etc. The working class could never unite on a socialist platform because they were more interested in ethnic and other forms of identification, and the ethnic vote is still more important than any class consciousness.

Sure, in relation to European countries and Japan, but what about Australia (where the division between Irish and English settlers over the Republic question is still important) or Brazil, which is even more ethnically diverse than the US is? I don't think this explanation holds water either.

A narrow and weak base in the labor unions?

In most countries with Socialist parties there is a strong relationship between the Socialist party and the labor unions. In Britain the unions set up the Labor Party. In Germany the Social Democratic Party set up the labor unions. In the US there have been many Socialists in the labor movement, but other labor leaders have been downright hostile to Socialism. The first union boss who ever became president of the United States was Ronald Reagan, who got his political start in the Screen Actors' Guild, a union with strong right and left wings.

But what's cause here and what's effect? Is Socialism so weak in the US because unions don't support it, or are so many unions hostile to Socialism because Socialism is so weak in the US, and they don't want to be associated with it?

Foreigners are stupid!

Don't laugh! This is actually proposed as a serious explanation. European workers were illiterate, and had to ask leftist intellectuals to write down their demands for them. The intellectuals added something at the end about socialization of the means of production, and Socialism was born out of this marriage of convenience between illiterate workers and leftist intellectuals. In the US universal primary education was traditional, workers could write their own demands, and demands for socialization of the means of production never occurred to anyone and never entered the workers' demands.

This explanation is so stupid I'm not even going to bother to refute it. But believe it or not, there is another equally stupid explanation that gets around.

Americans are stupid!

I'm not even going to mess with this one. Help yourself in the comments.

VI. CONCLUSION

The brief answer is I don't know either. I do feel strongly that the explanation should not be sought in something about American national character. After all, there was a Socialist Party in the US. It was very American (pragmatic, organized as a coalition of State Parties, and not really some foreign excrescence on the body politic). Maybe they shot themselves in the foot with the purge of the left in 1912, maybe they couldn't overcome corporate power and funding, maybe it's just a coincidence, and why do humans have to find deep meaning in everything?

You tell me. Then we'll write it up and make a fortune.