Criticism of weapons

By Sam Webb

I spoke last weekend at a public library in Blue Hills, a small coastal town in Maine. Most in the audience worked and voted for President Obama, but in the course of what was a very interesting conversation, it became clear that most of them haven't done much since then. How to explain this - probably they thought that they had done their part in electing a new President and that the country would move in a progressive direction on the strength and momentum of that victory.

Obviously, this hasn't happened. Since President Obama entered the White House, opposition to his agenda has been stiff, but none of the earlier legislative struggles match the scope and intensity of the current struggle over health care reform.

The Republican Party and its echo chambers in the mass media, shamelessly spewing hate, and racist caricatures and code words, and lies, want nothing more than to put a stake into the heart of health care reform. Then there are the private insurance companies who turn blue at the thought of a medicare-like public option that would cut into their profits and power. And if this isn't enough, sections of the Obama-led coalition, while supporting some aspects of health care legislation, are busy trying to torpedo a public option as well.

Marx once said that "the weapon of criticism can never replace the criticism of weapons." Marx wasn't making a pitch for violence, but rather suggesting that social change, above all, requires the united action of millions. Marx's observation was insightful then and resonates now as far as the struggle over health care reform is concerned.

If the people who elected the President and a new Congress (as well as others who didn't vote for them, but desperately need health care overhaul) become political actors (criticism of weapons) in the next few weeks, the American people will seal the deal on real health care change and set the stage for other reform struggles, including radical ones.

Admittedly, mobilization by labor and others is going on, but I suspect from my experience in Blue Hills that many decent minded people who could and should be engaged in this battle, are still on the sidelines. If this is so, the main task of supporters of health care reform is to immediately draw these very people into the struggle in very practical ways.

Maybe it's organizing a phone tree to a congressional representative, a visit to a legislator's office, a local demonstration, a town hall meeting, a resolution in a city council, church or union, civil disobedience at corporate headquarters of a private insurer, ...

Victory is assured if we do!

NY Times sexist re Hillary Clinton?

Pretty remarkable that the morning after Hillary Clinton, the U.S. secretary of state, gave a major foreign policy speech at the influential Council on Foreign Relations yesterday, the New York Times sole coverage of it is a piece focusing on rehashing the supposed personal Clinton-Obama rivalry theme. All about whether or not she is being shunted to the sidelines and whether she is trying to re-grab position. Cat-fight overtones here? Hardly a mention of the substantive foreign policy issues Clinton discussed, not even her interesting comments on reasserting State Department's role in foreign policy, i.e., demilitarizing it back from Pentagon.

And this is the take the Times chooses to put on page 1? You have to wonder, if it had been a similar speech by a male would they have handled it this way?

Is Obama moving to the "center"?

Here is an excellent commentary by Greg Sargent, who writes for the very useful and well-informed liberal political news blog TalkingPointsMemo:

The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne asks Obama advisers whether his appointments herald a shift to the center and is told that the answer is No:

Obama's selection of a team of highly skilled pragmatists has already been described as a move to the political center, but Obama advisers and longtime acquaintances say that this is a misreading of the incoming president and his approach. They describe it as combining a practicality about means with an overriding concern about the corrosive effects of growing economic inequalities...

Washington often divides the Democratic policy world between progressives and pragmatists. With Obama, as yesterday's news conference showed, it will have to become accustomed to a president who is both.

This goes to the heart of the debate that's taking shape among liberal writers over Obama's first moves. Do Obama's appointments constitute a betrayal of liberals, as Chris Bowers argues? Or is Obama merely assembling a team of experienced hands in order to implement his own progressive vision, as Matthew Yglesias contends?

I have no problem believing what Obama's advisers are telling Dionne. Either way, I don't see why we shouldn't just wait to see what actual policies Obama implements before making any judgments one way or the other. [emphasis added by me]

Very good point Greg!

Getting out of Iraq - reality vs. sloganeering

Some U.S. anti-Iraq-war people are starting to zero in on all the flaws and weak points of the proposed Iraq-U.S. agreement, but I'd say they are pretty much missing the forest for the trees.

What are they offering as a concrete and realizable alternative? "Out now"? Let's get serious. The nub of the issue right now is that the UN authorization for the U.S. occupation expires Dec. 31. What should happen Jan. 1? Do we, like the Iraqis judging from most reports, want to see Iraq get out from under the UN mandate and start taking over from the U.S.? And do we, like the Iraqis, want some restrictions on the U.S. military during this process -- Or are we just going to sit back and talk in slogans?

This report from Leila Fadel at McClatchy Newspapers, which has done a pretty good job reporting from Iraq, spells out some of the huge changes this agreement represents, for example:

If Iraq's parliament endorses the agreement, in six weeks American forces would have to change the way they operate in Iraq, and all U.S. combat troops, police trainers and military advisers would have to leave the country by Dec. 31, 2011. President-elect Barack Obama's campaign plan to leave a residual force of some 30,000 American troops in Iraq would be impossible under the pact. ...

The American military now can come and go as it pleases in Iraq. It raids homes without judicial approval, controls Iraq's airspace, detains civilians without warrants for as long as it wants and conducts unilateral operations against high-value targets, including a recent cross-border attack on an al Qaida in Iraq member in Syria that was condemned by Iraq, the Arab League and Syria.

The agreement forbids attacks on other countries from inside Iraq, and if it were approved, beginning Jan. 1 all U.S. operations would have to be conducted in cooperation with the Iraqi government.

"It is not permitted to use Iraqi land, water and airspace as a route or launching pad for attacks against other countries," the pact says, according to an Arabic copy that McClatchy obtained.

The military also would have to get arrest warrants from the Iraqi government, judicial orders for raids on homes and to consult in advance on every operation, including the attacks on high-value targets that American forces now routinely conduct on their own. ...

The Green Zone, where American contractors, some military personnel and officials live and work, would come under Iraqi control on the first day of next year. U.S. soldiers currently protect the area in central Baghdad, and checkpoints are manned by Peruvian mercenaries. State and Defense department officials breeze through the checkpoints, while most Iraqis are subjected to long searches.

Control of Iraqi airspace would be transferred to the Iraqis the day the agreement took effect, and after that the Iraqi government would issue annual permits to all U.S. military aircraft. Currently, the U.S. controls all air traffic over Iraq, including civilian flights, and it could shut down Iraq's airspace.

In provinces that have been turned over to Iraqi control, U.S. troops couldn't remain in cities, villages or towns after the agreement took effect, and as of June 30, all American combat troops would have to be in agreed-on locations outside populated areas.

They'd have no right, beginning next year, to venture off their bases and outposts without Iraqi authorities' approval and cooperation.

The Bush administration refused to meet Iraqi demands for legal jurisdiction over American military personnel, but the agreement does give Iraqi authorities the right to prosecute private contractors ...

It's also important for Americans to recognize that there is a political struggle going on in Iraq over the direction of their country. It remains to be seen if the Iraqi Parliament will ok the agreement, but don't get fooled by the political posturing and maneuvering going on there - a lot of it is geared toward the upcoming provincial elections and efforts by various parties to strengthen their hands in that contest. When push comes to shove, most seem prepared to support this agreement as a better alternative than keeping Iraq completely subjugated to the U.S.

Clearly, too, this agreement is in line with Obama's approach on getting out of Iraq.

A recent New York Times article sheds light on the dynamics:

“Before, the Iraqis were thinking that if they sign the pact, there will be no respect for the schedule of troop withdrawal by Dec. 31, 2011,” said Hadi al-Ameri, a powerful member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a major Shiite party. “If Republicans were still there, there would be no respect for this timetable. This is a positive step to have the same theory about the timetable as Mr. Obama.” ...

Many Shiite politicians had been under intense pressure from Iranian leaders not to sign a security agreement. Iran, which has close ties to Shiite politicians, has feared the agreement would lay the groundwork for a permanent American troop presence in Iraq that would threaten Iran.

But now, the Iraqis appear to be feeling less pressure from Iran, perhaps because the Iranians are less worried that an Obama government will try to force a regime change in their country. ...

with Iraqis believing that Mr. Obama, as president, would move faster to withdraw American troops, Iraqi and American officials said obstacles to a security agreement appeared to be fading.

Jabeer Habeeb, an independent Shiite lawmaker and a political scientist at Baghdad University, put it simply: “Obama’s election shifts Iraq into a new position.”

Front page news

The New York Times web site informs us that:

In an elaborate hoax, pranksters distributed thousands of free copies of a spoof edition of The New York Times on Wednesday morning at busy subway stations around the city, including Grand Central Terminal, Washington and Union Squares, the 14th and 23rd Street stations along Eighth Avenue, and Pacific Street in Brooklyn, among others.

The spurious 14-page papers — with a headline “IRAQ WAR ENDS” — surprised commuters, many of whom took the free copies thinking they were legitimate.

The paper is dated July 4, 2009, and imagines a liberal utopia of national health care, a rebuilt economy, progressive taxation, a national oil fund to study climate change, and other goals of progressive politics.

The hoax was accompanied by a Web site that mimics the look of The Times’s real Web site. A page of the spoof site contained links to dozens of progressive organizations, which were also listed in the print edition.

Later on Wednesday morning, the Yes Men (those pranksters who fooled WTO folks and others - subject of a 2004 documentary) issued a statement claiming credit for the prank. The statement said, in part:

In an elaborate operation six months in the planning, 1.2 million
papers were printed at six different presses and driven to prearranged
pickup locations, where thousands of volunteers stood ready to pass
them out on the street.

Articles in the paper announce dozens of new initiatives including the
establishment of national health care, the abolition of corporate
lobbying, a maximum wage for C.E.O.s, and, of course, the end of the
war.

The paper, an exact replica of The New York Times, includes
International, National, New York, and Business sections, as well as
editorials, corrections, and a number of advertisements, including a
recall notice for all cars that run on gasoline. There is also a
timeline describing the gains brought about by eight months of
progressive support and pressure, culminating in President Obama's "Yes
we REALLY can" speech. (The paper is post-dated July 4, 2009.)

"It's all about how at this point, we need to push harder than ever,"
said Bertha Suttner, one of the newspaper's writers. "We've got to
make sure Obama and all the other Democrats do what we elected them to do. After eight, or maybe twenty-eight years of hell, we need to start
imagining heaven."

Check it out yourself here.

And be sure to check out the brilliant mea culpa parody of Times columnist Thomas Friedman.

News flash: most Americans WANT to redistribute the wealth

A new Gallup poll released yesterday finds that "a majority of Americans (58%) say money and wealth should be more evenly distributed among a larger percentage of the people."

And just under half (46%) "go so far as to say that the government should redistribute wealth by 'heavy taxes on the rich.'"

Gallup says it has been asking the public for over 20 years whether they think the distribution of money and wealth in this country is "fair," or whether money and wealth should be "more evenly distributed among a larger percentage of the people," and "across the nine times the question has been asked, a majority of Americans have agreed with the thought that money and wealth should be more evenly distributed."

In each of the four times Gallup has asked "Do you think our government should or should not redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich?" in recent years, "between 45% and 51% of Americans have gone so far as to agree with the fairly harsh-sounding policy of 'redistribut[ing] wealth by heavy taxes on the rich.'"

That's the real American spirit, dontcha think?

William Kristol advises McCain-Palin - again - and when is the Times going to fire him?

New York Times op ed columnist William Kristol is full of advice for the McCain campaign. A few weeks ago, he recommended that

McCain needs to liberate his running mate from the former Bush aides brought in to handle her — aides who seem to have succeeded in importing to the Palin campaign the trademark defensive crouch of the Bush White House. McCain picked Sarah Palin in part because she’s a talented politician and communicator. He needs to free her to use her political talents and to communicate in her own voice.

Kristol noted with satisfaction that

McCain recently expressed unhappiness with his staff’s handling of Palin [and] dispatched his top aides Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis to join Palin in Philadelphia. They’re supposed to liberate Palin to go on the offensive as a combative conservative ...

She should spend her time making the case for McCain and, more important, the case against Obama. As one shrewd McCain supporter told me, "Every minute she spends not telling the American people something that makes them less well disposed to Obama is a minute wasted.”

Kristol kept up this theme in his next Palin-adoring column (Oct. 6), approvingly noting that Palin

regretted allowing herself to be overly handled and constrained after the Republican convention.

This column devoted itself to the theme that Palin should be

more aggressive in helping the American people understand "who the real Barack Obama is"

- with "Wright" and "Ayers" figuring large in Kristol's prescription.

Kirstol's drooling over Palin reached its inane conclusion thusly:

I was about to thank her for the interview, but she had one more thing to say. “Only maybe I’d add just a couple more words, and that would be: ‘Take the gloves off.’
And maybe I’d add, Hockey Mom knows best.

But wait!

Today, it's all different!

In today's column, Kristol declares:

let McCain go back to what he’s been good at in the past — running as a cheerful, open and accessible candidate. Palin should follow suit.

They should now be the "happy warriors," he says.

The bad news, of course, is that right now Obama’s approval/disapproval rating is better than McCain’s. Indeed, Obama’s is a bit higher than it was a month ago. That suggests the failure of the McCain campaign’s attacks on Obama.

So drop them.

Huh?

Oh - "not because they’re illegitimate" but because "they aren't working." Apparently, Kristol wants McCain-Palin to keep fomenting "doubts about Obama" but not in their own names - "McCain needs to make his case, and do so as a serious but cheerful candidate for times that need a serious but upbeat leader."

And, Kristol suggests,

At Wednesday night’s debate at Hofstra, McCain might want to volunteer a mild mea culpa about the extent to which the presidential race has degenerated into a shouting match.

Has this supposed pundit no shame?

After egging McCain-Palin on to whip a lynch mob atmosphere complete with racism and threats of violence, he's now advising McCain to hypocritically offer "a mild mea culpa" that really apologizes for nothing?

What I'm really waiting for, however, is for the New York Times to offer a strong "mea culpa" for hiring this pseudo-intellectual apologist for the far-right, paying him undoubtedly big bucks and providing valuable print space for his idiotic and viciously destructive output.

Biden v. Palin

Hard to see how any undecided working class/ middle class voter would not be impressed by Biden, his demeanor, his knowledge on issues and politics, his focus on working family issues and ending the Iraq war, his sincerity. He scored a few zingers, exposing McCain-Palin record - "McCain's no maverick" - but did it in a nice way. By contrast, Palin repeated "talking point" slogans over and over even when they were not on the question, avoided answering questions she thought were difficult, and showed little knowledge on issues. Everything was platitudes, generalities and plastic smiles. Her enthusiasm for "drill, baby, drill" is not likely to be hugely popular.

Biden exceeded my expectations in his performance, which I thought was flawless. It may be a big boost to the Obama momentum.

Veterans speak on why they back Obama

A new political realignment is taking shape before our eyes

Notes from Denver on day two:

I had never been to this beautiful city with majestic
mountain views, friendly welcoming people and a proud working
class history. It is a privilege to be here now as history
unfolds and political shifts open up new possibilities to
raise the quality of life and living standards of working people.

I came to participate with labor and people's organizations who
are fired up to finally defeat the ultra-right. This varied movement
goes beyond the confines of the Democratic Party and the campaign. It
reflects an expansion of the electorate and a good understanding
of the urgency to defeat the ultra-right this year. It is a product
of years of work to create a broad, all peoples front against the
ultra right.

The labor movement is front and center here. A wonderful labor unity rally
got all the union delegates, a quarter of the whole convention, prepared.
The labor caucus, as well as big caucus meets of women, youth and Latino
voters, engaging around the platform, all report that more requests
have been incorporated than ever before.

There is a lot of passion and clarity on why it is so important that
John McCain not become president. At a celebration of the 88th anniversary
of women winning the right to vote, one speaker put it plain: Do you want a zero or a hero?

That means McCain's voting record on women's health issues is zero and
Obama's is 98.

Michelle Obama's speech on the opening night of the convention captured
the journey of her African American working class family and its hopes and
dreams, made possible by struggles since our nation's founding. It showed that her
struggles are the same as many families', and touched deeply.

Both the Latino and the women's caucus meetings were big rallies
with hundreds participating. Music and other cultural aspects have
reached out to young people.

An important venue during the convention is Progressive Central sponsored
by Progressive Democrats of America around the theme Health Care not
Warfare. It organizes at the grass roots to get support for the most
progressive members of Congress. In just four years it has gained official recognition
from the House leadership for opposition to the war and other issues.

I enjoy distributing the Peoples Weekly World / Nuestro Mundo. It givea a
chance to get reactions from the public a little bit. We are getting a
great response to the paper and our election program.

A new political realignment is taking shape before our eyes as many
ordinary people become activated for the first time and embrace more
radical solutions to meet their needs.

As John Conyers said in a panel on universal single-payer health care,
"The majority of people in our country want HR 676. It's just a matter of
time and organizing as to how much longer it will be."

The speech by Barack Obama on August 28, the 45th anniversary of the
March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom where Martin Luther King Jr. gave
his famous I Have A Dream speech, will be a new milestone for our country,
a passing of the torch. The outcome of the election will be determined by
each and everyone doing their part to outfox the Rove hate machine.
Spread the word and get out the vote. That's the message on day 2.

- Joelle Fishman

Barack Obama - Father's Day Speech

One of the great things that separates Obama from other politicians is his willingness to take controversial issues head-on. In his speech on Father's Day, Obama criticizes the absentee father and their impact on families, especially in the African-American community. As with his speech on racism, Obama is both eloquent and blunt; he lays out the issue in simple terms, speaking from experience and without political spin.

Here's a link for the full transcript.

Also a good summary from NY Times.

Of Smears & Red Hysteria

Isn’t it amazing how dangerously influential the CPUSA has suddenly become again? As a regular peruser of the insane ramblings of Right-Wing bloggers, I am seeing a huge increase of histrionic entries by the wing-nut 101^st Keyboard Brigade about Barack Obama’s secret commie background. Most entries are just cut and past jobs emanating from the (in)Accuracy In The Media howlings of Cliff Kincaid. Kincaid believes he has become the new Woodward & Bernstein by “uncovering” Obama’s childhood connection to Frank Marshall Davis, the African-American poet and journalist. Davis was a family friend during the period Obama lived in Hawaii. The whole thing is way too tiresome to get into. Google Davis and I’m sure a hard drive could be filled with the links to calls from these wanna be Paul Reveres to defend Americuh from the Red Menace posted all over the Internet.

Suddenly, the CPUSA, once again has “front organizations” and secret “moles” being used to subvert this shining republic. Obama is not being upfront about his commie connections, they write. Another hit piece titled “Barack Obama's communist connections” written by Wes Vernon from a pseudo-patriot web site called Renew America goes into more detail about the dangers of Obama’s past. My point is that these stories are being reposted over and over again. Add these to the pervasive misinformation being planted such as Obama’s a Muslim, he isn’t patriotic or that he downright hates America and it becomes too obvious that Right-Wing America is terrified of Obama. Let’s be truthful, America. The real issue is that Obama is—drum roll please—BLACK! These loons on the Right know that they can’t take the racist low road so they have found something akin to a pair of dirty under shorts to rally around. Instead of a burning cross, these drones have dredged up the old “Red under every bed” chestnut.

I have no idea whether Obama ever had Communist or Socialist leanings. Maybe he was what I like to call a “college Socialist.” I’ve seen it over and over again. College students get involved in socialist and communist parties while in school but as soon as they graduate and land a great paying job, all thoughts of Marx are forgotten. Let us hope that Obama has maintained some of the advice from Frank Marshall Davis.

I am reminded of the “When I give bread to a poor man they call me a saint. When I ask why he is poor they call me a communist” quote. Displaying social responsibility and fighting for social justice has become the new communism for the Right. How could it not? We live in a country where greed and decadence is rewarded and viewed as a sign of success. If you are poor, you are garbage not worth the time to market to. I’m an up from the dirt Prole and proud of it. Capitalism DID make me one of its grave-diggers in waiting.

My father was a janitor and my mother cleaned houses and motels. I grew up living with class prejudice. I lived in a ramshackle house with no hot water, a coal furnace, an outhouse and a party line telephone. My clothes never failed to get me ridiculed at school. What has this to do with my original rant? I think we should be screaming from rooftops that we are Communists and proud of it. We must illustrate why we are Communists. Why do we believe what we do? We have forgotten that communist work is not just an intellectual concept promoted by those who sit in offices or college classrooms. We must remember that the real work is down at the street level. We must become community activists. This is where the people learn what we are. The wing-nuts use words to label us. We should use action to define ourselves.

How about a numerical estimate of the casualties of Capitalism? The Right loves to toss around the “100 million victims of Communism” claim.

We should be blogging to counter the Right. We need to better explain to the masses what our program consists of. We need to dispel the idea that our Party wishes to turn Amerika into a Stalinist gulag. How much longer shall we allow the mistakes of the past to be used against us with an uneducated public? We need to organize more aggressively as was done in the early years. I suggest a serious summer seminar on how to talk to people about our ideas and how to counter our critics.

I hope this wasn't too long and boring. I have a tendency to ramble.

Obama Blues Over?

Now that Obama leads in superdelegates, and Hillary has started to take a slightly less divisive tone, is his oxymoronic first-place runner up status finally over? Don't count on it. And don't underestimate the manipulative powers of the corporate media and the Democratic Party machine.