The current Republican buzzword, according to the media which helps perpetuate it, is "Fascism."
Our Todd Beeton highlighted the heinous speech from Donald Rumsfeld earlier this week, when the Defence Secretary took to labeling those of us who oppose the Iraq war as supporters of "fascism." President Bush has stopped using "War On Terror," and instead is saying that we're in a global struggle against "Islamic Fascism." Other Republican attack dogs, from Dick Cheney to Rick Santorum have also recently made a point of using "fascism" in their speeches.
This has got to be the most tragically ironic buzzwords the Republicans have managed to pull off. Because it seems to me that the closest thing to fascism we've seen so far this century isn't the horrific insurgency in Iraq, nor even the thoroughly despicable actions of al-Queda. It's what the Republicans are doing in response to terrorism that's the most fascist.
Just ask Raeed Jarrar.
Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Jose Padilla, and people arrested on terrorism charges without much evidence earlier this year will all tell you that the Republican regime in Washington has done a great job of taking America closer to fascism. Raeed Jarrar hasn't suffered a fate as bad as the people stuck in Guantanamo with no hope of a trial, but he is one of many Middle Eastern Americans who has seen their civil liberties and faith in America come under assault.
Mr. Jarrar was waiting, having passed through security, at JFK airport for a flight back to his home in California, when he was ordered by airport authorities to remove his T-shirt because it had a slogan on it. First Amendment notwithstanding, Mr. Jarrar was eventually forced to change from his shirt, which bore the slogan "We Will Not Be Silent" in both English and Arabic. The real irony here is that this slogan has its origins in the White Rose anti-Nazi movement in Germany.
The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee is looking in to Mr. Jarrar's case, and many others like it. With federal policies like the "President's Program," which allows the federal government to listen in on the telephone conversations of Americans without a warrant, and other Republican efforts which monitor Muslim American homes and mosques without a warrant -- and of course the USA PATRIOT Act, it's nowhere near radical to worry that the US has taken a few perilous steps toward fascism ever since Bush came to office.
The way forward, of course, is to stop allowing Republicans to "stay the course." We've got to restore our civil liberties, and the ballot box is where it starts. Contrary to what Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Bush will tell you, the way to oppose fascism is to stop voting for Republicans.
I met Phil Angelides today. He came to Santa Barbara and held a town hall meeting in the backyard of a volunteer's home. There were about 50 or 60 people there, and they all had a chance to ask questions and mingle with Phil. There were a few tough questions - about immigration, education, and the negative campaign ads that came out during the primary election.
I "met" Arnold Schwarzenegger back in October. He came to Santa Barbara and held an invitation-only meeting for a pre-screened audience in a garbage processing facility. There were about 50 or 60 invited guests allowed to actually see Arnold, and the rest of us were forced to wait outside. Arnold didn't face any unscripted questions, and he didn't have to meet anyone who might have disagreed with him.
Today, showing stark contrasts with Arnold, Phil Angelides talked about his plans for making California better. He talked about the need to support hardworking, middle class families with tax breaks for people living month-to-month, and by rolling back the cost of health care and higher education.
Schwarzenegger has spent more time in recent weeks talking about Phil then he has talking about his own plans. Probably because Schwarzenegger's plans have fallen flat. While Arnold has been in office, the average California family has seen a rise in annual costs of about $4,422 - this is taking into account rising health care costs, tuition and fees, and the rising cost at the pump. In the same time period - since Arnold took over - corporate profits have skyrocketed.
Phil spoke plainly about the need for major, multinational corporations to pay their fair share in California. Right now, some 46 major multinationals pay zero dollars in California taxes. Meanwhile, the burden on middle income families has increased. Phil has a better, courageous plan.
Arnold is more interested in protecting his contributors in big business. When Arnold promises "no new taxes," what he really means is that he won't ask multinational corporations to pay their fair share. He has coddled the HMO's and the oil companies while breaking his promise to fully fund education.
On immigration, Phil got some tough questions today. He was asked what his position is on giving driver licenses to undocumented people, and he was asked what he would do as governor about undocumented workers and illegal immigration in general. Phil said, simply, that the driver license issue shouldn't be political - that it's better to have trained, insured, and licensed drivers on the road. As for immigration, Phil said that the border needs to be enforced, but certainly not with the National Guard. As governor, Phil would make the federal government do what it promised to do, and he would keep the National Guard available for rapid deployment in the event of a disaster - he'd never use the Guard as a political symbol along the border. And, finally, Phil said that as governor, he'll work with Senators Feinstein and Boxer to craft a path to citizenship for undocumented workers already here.
Over the weekend, Arnold had very different things to say about immigration. Arnold did his best to whip up his right-wing base - first by criticizing Phil's plan, and then making lots of inflammatory statements about the need to be "tough" on immigrants. Rather than detail a better plan, Arnold just has just done his best to fan the flames of the right-wing, going so far as to appear on conservative talk radio to offer praise for the Minutemen.
Phil's campaign for governor has been about showing a better way for California. Arnold, in the meantime, has already spent $20 Million dollars on negative attack ads. When asked about the negative primary campaign, Phil noted that he spent 90% of his campaign cash on positive ads. Phil warned the crowd that Arnold will continue to saturate the airwaves with lots of negative messages.
At the town hall today, Phil closed by acknowledging that he personally would continue to get hit hard by Arnold and his Republican allies. Arnold has already brought in the Bush/Cheney election team to help run his campaign. But Phil emphasized that no matter how hard the Republicans personally hit him in the campaign, it's nothing compared to the hit that the Republicans make every day on working people in California with their broken plans, broken promises, and busted budgets.
After keeping it warm in the nest for a few months, CBS is about to hatch a brilliant advertising scheme. They're using lasers to etch the CBS eye onto eggshells on sale at the grocery store.
Yes, you read that right. Take a look at a few examples. Slogans etched next to the CBS logo include "punny" gems like "Leave The Yolks To Us" and "Crack The Case" with CSI.
Advertisers have been looking for new ways to serve up their ads as traditional methods have been challenged by new technologies. DVRs make it easy to skip ads on television, junk mail is getting more expensive, and even savvy internet ads can often easily get circumvented by intelligent browsers. So, the PR department at CBS now occupies the vanguard, risking getting egg on their face while pushing the envelope of advertising.
Here's an idea. Let's get progressive political ads on eggshells, too. How about a quick contest right here in the comments section. Any ideas on some egg-themed slogans for Proposition 89 or for Phil's campaign? Here's one: "Stop Putting All Our Eggs In A Corrupt Basket -- YES on 89!"
See, I need help.
Best egg-related progressive slogan in the comments wins a free, autographed copy of my secret recipe for deviled eggs. Ooh -- how about "No More Shell Games -- Vote Democrat In 2006!" I'm on a roll! No pun intended.
On that fateful summer's day, the greatest creation to hit computer screens since Al Gore invented the internet premiered. This very blog was read for the first time by... well, someone as insignificant as you. But it's not you that's important.
It's like I always say. If this blog touches just one, little, insignificant life out there, then I really have done it. I really have created The Most Important Blog... Ever.
Hard to believe two years have already gone by.
Enjoy the redesign, and thanks for being the world's Most Important Readers. I appreciate each and every one of you.
Today, the LA Times has a story about the impending strike from some Los Angeles city workers. The very interesting and well written article picks up on the irony that LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was a union organizer himself, and now he's the one facing an action from unionized workers. While I know very little about the specific grievances that have led up to the strike (which could start as early as tomorrow), from what the UAW delegate taught me at the convention, it seems to me that no matter how progressive your boss is, there's always a system in place in the way work happens in this country that demands an organized, unionized workforce if there's to be any chance at justice for workers.
A basic and simple reality of life is that there are limited resources. Not everyone can have a private jet on standby like famous bloggers do. So, as ironic as the LA Times implies it is that union-man Mayor Villaraigosa now has to work in management, the truth is that when resources are limited, choices have to be made. As any worker can tell you, the easiest choice for an employer to make is to ask workers to work harder and for less compensation. Many observers continue to insist that the reason US organized labor is hurting is because it's too greedy -- if only workers would work for nothing, then there'd be no worries in our economy, they seem to suggest. The reality, of course, is that some sort of compromise must always get struck between employer and employee -- and the only way for workers to have a real voice in those negotiations is through unionizing. The structural conditions of work in our system mean that having a strong union is the only way to make sure that workers' rights are taken care of.
I work for the University of California, a progressive institution by most measures. Like most of the University's workers, I belong to a union. In my case, the union is the UAW, and my local had to work hard over a decade to convince a court that graduate student employees are even workers. The University -- looking to save scarce resources -- aruged that grading papers is simply part of a graduate education. Teaching college students and grading papers isn't work, they said, and the court disagreed. Now, student workers at the UC campuses, teaching assistants and readers, are represented by the UAW. This isn't unusual -- the UAW represents workers at the University of Washington, the California State University system, and at New York University, among other places. The UAW, in fact, represents more student workers than any other union. And, a UAW local also represents some SEIU staffers.
Ironically, the magazine In These Times ran a story by Greg Bloom on this very issue -- unions at progressive employers -- just a few days ago (the article was highlighted at MyDD). The article features interviews with workers at a very progressive, activist organization: The LA Fund. The LA Fund recruits, organizes, and hires canvassers to go door-to-door, make phone calls, and stand on busy street corners to raise awareness about (and campaign cash for) progressive issues. Over the past year, their hard working canvassers have started an organizing drive. Rather than allow their workers to unionize, The LA Fund has engaged in sharply anti-union tactics. They closed down their street organizing office rather than allow the workers there to organize, for example. That's the kind of stuff that Wal-Mart likes to pull. While The LA Fund is a great, progressive organization, they're clearly not always the best employer. That's just how it goes -- workers need a union if they want their voice to be heard at work.
Back to the looming strike in LA. Given that it's quite common for progressive employers to try to cut back on worker's rights, the pending strike in LA seems less ironic. The article in the Times goes on to quote Mayor Villaraigosa as saying that he feels the contract he's offering the city workers is "fair." He defends his actions as Mayor by saying, "We need to get our fiscal house in order." This is of course true, but it's not ironic at all that Mayor Villiagrosa has different priorities now that he's management. And it's not a sign of greed or unreasonableness that the city workers feel the need to engage in their right to strike. This is how the system works when workers' rights are protected.
Northwest Airlines, known better as NorthWorst Airlines in my hometown and Northwest hub city, Detroit, issued a handbook to some of its employees which included money-saving tips just in case they get laid off. Northwest management suggested rummaging around in dumpsters and taking dates to the woods rather than dinner and a movie. There really are a bunch of snakes running these planes!
Last year, management at Northwest chose to go into bankruptcy and then hired scab workers all to bust the union representing Northwest mechanics and other ground workers. At the time, Northwest flight attendants and pilots didn't to sympathy strike. But, yesterday, as Northwest seeks to impose devastating cuts to wages and benefits, a federal judge ruled that the flight attendants do indeed have the right to call a strike. Such a strike would obviously cripple the airline, causing disruption not only for Northwest but also for the American economy in general.
Rather than negotiate for a fair and reasonable contract which would keep Northwest flying, the snakes managing Northwest planes have sought to bust yet another union. As if union busting wasn't enough, the patronizing and insulting "tips" for saving money in the event of a job loss show just how vicious those anti-working family snakes running Northwest planes really are. You definitely won't see me on a Northwest plane any time soon, even if I've got Samuel L. Jackson on my side.
The Register, a UK paper, has published an article asking whether terrorists could bring the necessary chemical components of the TATP explosive onto an airplane and then mix them in-flight to produce an explosion large enough to bring down the flight. They take us through the complex steps, and then conclude that such a plot is highly unlikely:
"...the Hollywood myth of binary liquid explosives now moves governments and drives public policy. We have reacted to a movie plot."
I wish everyone would have known that last Thursday, when I had to gulp down my fricking caramel latte all at once just so I could get on a damn airplane.
We now return you to regular posting. Enjoy.
But "The Center" is imaginary. Or, more accurately, "The Center" is determined by those who have the biggest microphone -- not by the actual opinions of voters. Trying to be "centrist" or to live in the magical "Center" is a sure-fire way to lose political courage.
Recently, these hidden truths about the magical "Center" have been quite evident in the election of Ned Lamont as the Democratic candidate for the US Senate in Connecticut. In the campaign for that seat, the poppycock about "The Center" coming from the Joe Lieberman camp and his allies in the Republican establishment has been nothing but line after line about the "Center" and how Lamont is a dangerous radical. David Sirota and many others have made these observations about "The Center" before, but allow me to briefly sum up the implications for making "The Center" the basis of a campaign and how progressives might best respond to this very effective strategy often used by right-wingers.
The surest path to the magical "Center" is actually quite simple, and Lieberman has tried his best to follow that path. To be in "The Center," all you have to do is say that you are a "centrist." Lieberman claims that he has a "centrist" position on the Iraq war, a war he enthusiastically supported from the beginning, and until today he advocates a "stay the course" policy. If "The Center" is where most people live, then Lieberman is well outside "The Center" with his opinion in the Iraq war. Wide majorities of Americans in all states -- 60 to 40 -- disagree with Lieberman's "stay the course" position. Among Democrats, the margin is closer to 90/10. A majority of Americans -- 53% -- believe that we should have stayed out of Iraq in the first place. But for the "centrist" Lieberman, all he has to do is claim "The Center," and it can be his.
This is a textbook example of how "The Center" is an illusion. The person with the loudest microphone -- or the biggest PR budget -- can usually set "The Center" even if what they call "The Center" is in fact not suppored by a majority. Lamont is still considered a "radical" by many because the Republican establishment and Lieberman have painted him as outside "The Center," when in reality, Lamont's positions reflect his constituency's far better than Lieberman's positions do.
Of course, simply following polls isn't the way to political courage. A wide majority of Strom Thurmond's constituents agreed with his segregationist platform, but that didn't make him correct to pursue those policies. One of the most crucial tensions in small-d democracy is the tension between an elected official's role as representative and role as courageous leader. As representative, Thurmond was just doing his job by taking on racist views and supporting segregationist policies. But he failed in his equally important role as courageous leader -- someone who leads his constituents somewhere rather than just taking them where they already are, to "The Center."
Back in today's world, Ned Lamont has shown political courage by doing what a big-D Democrat should do -- act like a member of the opposition party. Lieberman's insistance that he's a "bipartisian" has been another part of his strategy to claim "The Center." Lieberman insists that "centrsists" work with members of both parties. And, of course, working with Republicans is not necessarily bad. But when a Democrat helps tow the false Republican line that the Republican establishment represents "The Center," then that's not bipartisianship -- that's enabling. Ned Lamont's campaign has given Democrats a way forward -- a way to reposition "The Center" through political courage.
While strategy and being a good representative democrat often requires that a candidate take positions that a majority of voters agree with, and especially in an era where most American voters call themselves "centrist independents," it's often very effective to couch a candidate in the langauge of centrism. And the Republicans have become masters of making any position they take out to be firmly in "The Center."
The way for progressives to move ahead is to build grassroots coalitions and elect candidates that will enact policy that represents what Americans really want. On virtually any issue in Connecticut or California today, the public holds beliefs far to the left of where Republicans say the "center" is.
Rather than enabling the establishment, right-wing Republicans to claim the Center, it is the role of courageous activists and candidates to demand that the "Center" move back to the left.
The LA Times reported recently on the rapidly declining enrollment in public schools throughout the state. Particularly in coastal cities like here in Santa Barbara, as well as in LA and the Bay Area, the public schools are losing enrollment due in large part to the skyrocketing cost of housing. This is particularly worrisome for the welfare of public schools because the vast majority of public school funding is set according to enrollment. As enrollment has dropped rapidly, so has funding for public schools.
The funding levels for many public school systems in California are already drastically low, and any loss due to enrollment drops will not help give our children the education they deserve.
Recently, The Oprah Winfrey Show ran a special on the dilapidated state of many schools in the US, and she made a stop in Los Angeles to show the conditions in some of the LA public schools. With dramatic television images, the nation saw the overcrowding of students into old school buildings which are falling apart.
Rather than commit to keeping our public schools strong in the face of even further drastic cuts -- which will inevitably lead to the cutting of programs and the closing of schools -- Republicans have forwarded plans to weaken public schools even further.
At a press conference last month, Department of Education Secretary Margaret Spellings announced a bold new federal school vouchers initiative. With a price tag of $100 million, Spellings promised that the new program would allow some parents in places like LA, where public schools are in terrible shape, to have the choice to send their students to private schools. Some parents in certain areas would be eligible for $4,000 tuition vouchers to use at a private or religious school, under this new program.
This program would evacuate a few lucky students from failing public schools, subsidize part of their tuition at private or religious schools, and leave the rest of the children in the public schools behind.
Secretary Spellings did not address the question of what would happen to students who remain in the public schools. She did not address how public school funding levels would be affected by an even steeper loss in enrollment that might be caused by this voucher program. She didn't even address the results of a study undertaken by her own Department of Education, showing that private schools over no academic benefit over public schools.
Spellings, like other Republicans who see vouchers as the answer to the crisis in public education, relies on the vapid argument that giving public dollars to private schools would force public schools to somehow transform into more efficient entities. Somehow, a further loss of funding for the schools would result in better buildings and less crowded classrooms, according to this line of thinking. "Throwing money" at the schools won't help, say voucher proponents like Spellings.
Of course, accountability in the public schools is important, but slashing funding when students face dire overcrowding is not the path to a better education system. Phil Angelides has a better plan.
Since 2002, Angelides has been on the forefront of efforts to improve California's schools through innovative funding proposals and effective policies to allow families to have choice, to save for college, and to be involved in the education of their children.
While Republican policymakers talk about leaving children behind, Phil Angelides want s to see a real solution which will really leave no child behind. What do you think?
From the Courage Campaign
In the most spectacular PR event of the campaign for the Governorship of California so far, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger staged a very high-profile event with British Prime Minister Tony Blair yesterday.
The event was billed as a new agreement between Great Britain and California on the environment. In reality, this was a giant campaign boost for Schwarzenegger (and Blair) as they both try hard to distance themselves from President Bush.
No one denies that the goal of improving the environment is extremely important, and that Schwarzenegger attempting to work with the international community is undoubtedly a good thing. But yesterday's announcement, which Schwarzenegger's office calls "historic," is short on specifics, short on actual policy, and short on ideas. First and foremost, the plan calls for private industry to somehow decide to become environmentally friendly without regulations. Then, the agreement makes important but impossibly vague commitments to start in collaborative research on climate change and technology. No actual plans were laid out to achieve these objectives, but there was enough fanfare for the meeting in LA to make it look like a Hollywood film premiere. Clearly, the agreement made yesterday was less about concrete results and more about putting concrete distance between Schwarzenegger and the unpopular President.
Yesterday's PR event, while very encouraging, doesn't change the fact that Arnold is a huge supporter (and driver) of huge, gas-guzzling cars like the Hummer. Arnold is much closer to the Bush "Clear Skies" environmental plan than he is to any actual plan to clean up the skies. Arnold has opposed important progressive environmental legislation in the past, and there's no reason to expect bold new proposals from Schwarzenegger if he were to win in November.
California doesn't need more flashy PR events. It needs a real governor who will support real, substantative solutions to save the environment and slow down climate change.
From the Courage Campaign
