MORE proof Frank Wolf does not deserve to be re-elected to represent the 10th district, because he is not representing the 10th district of Virginia or the best interest of the American people as a whole. He is representing the wealthy and the corporate interest of Wall Street. We need Jeff Barnett in Congress!
McLEAN, VA – Jeff Barnett, Democratic Nominee for Congress in Virginia’s 10th District, praised the House of Representatives for passing the much-needed Wall Street Reform Bill (H.R. 4173 – The Restoring American Financial Stability Act).
“We all remember the financial crisis of 2008. We remember the uncertainty and the fear. We watched in horror as millions lost their jobs, and we saw trillions of dollars in wealth evaporate into thin air. Then, we waited in frustration as political gridlock prevented Congress from addressing the real causes of the collapse. That wait is finally coming to an end. Last night, as the House of Representatives took a significant step towards preventing another financial crisis, Frank Wolf took a step backwards.”
“I am disappointed that my opponent voted against a bill that would empower consumers and guard against the reckless speculation that shook the foundations of our economy,” Barnett said. “Frank Wolf’s vote last night sends an unmistakable message about his priorities: our thirty-year incumbent is a powerful defender of the status quo. Frank Wolf chose to defend big banks instead of standing up for working families. Frank Wolf voted to leave intact the system that cost so many their jobs and their savings. That’s unacceptable.”
“My opponent was blind to the onset of the financial crisis when he chaired one of the committees charged with oversight of the SEC. Last night, he had an opportunity to make up for that blindness by voting to protect consumers and investors. Instead, Frank Wolf opposed a bill that will bring security and stability to the financial system. Our Nation cannot afford another two years of Rep. Wolf’s obstructive short-sightedness,” Barnett warned. “I am committed to bringing a new brand of pragmatic and anticipatory leadership to Washington. The 10th District deserves a Congressman who understands both the productive power of the markets and the need for sensible rules to hold them accountable.”
BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
02 July 2010
Michael Steele speaks truth to power (COMES OUT AGAINST THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN) 2JUL10
gop chairman michael steele has managed to get both his feet in his mouth while having his head up his ass with this one! This is a perfect example of gop tea-bagger revisionist history fueled by their vile hatred of everything Obama and Democratic Party. I too am opposed to the war in Afghanistan (and Iraq), but I am not wavering in my opposition and know it was the failed policies of the fascist bush administration that got us in the situations we are in in these two wars today.
I'm not really sure what to make of this video that has just surfaced of Michael Steele at a fundraiser in Connecticut talking about the Afghanistan war.
It's unequivocal: Steele says that the war was one of Obama's choosing, that we shouldn't be there, and -- crucially -- that history teaches us it's probably a lost cause. That puts him at odds with the entire GOP and many Dems. It's the must-watch video of the morning:
Steele starts off with a standard GOP talking point: That Stanley McChrystal's barbed comments about members of the administration show "frustration" on the part of military leaders towards Obama. But then he seems to veer off in an odd direction:
Next, Steele tried to attack Obama by pointing out that during the campaign he insulated himself against charges that he's a dove by calling for a ramp up in Afghanistan. Fair enough. But then he compounded the mess by slipping into a kind of auto-pilot mode where he just started criticizing the Afghan war as a disaster and unwinnable because it's now Obama's war. Result: Steele said that Obama chose this war, that we shouldn't be there, and we now can't win.
Anyone got a better explanation?
I'm not really sure what to make of this video that has just surfaced of Michael Steele at a fundraiser in Connecticut talking about the Afghanistan war.
It's unequivocal: Steele says that the war was one of Obama's choosing, that we shouldn't be there, and -- crucially -- that history teaches us it's probably a lost cause. That puts him at odds with the entire GOP and many Dems. It's the must-watch video of the morning:
Steele starts off with a standard GOP talking point: That Stanley McChrystal's barbed comments about members of the administration show "frustration" on the part of military leaders towards Obama. But then he seems to veer off in an odd direction:
"Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama's choosing. This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."...Let me have a stab at guessing what happened here. I say Steele initially meant to say that the Afghan war wasn't a war of our choosing because we were attacked on September 11th, forcing us to invade. But that came out all wrong because he garbled it by mixing it with an attack on Obama.
"It was the president who was trying to be cute by half by flipping a script demonizing Iraq, while saying the battle really should be in Afghanistan. Well, if he's such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? All right, because everyone who has tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed. And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan."
Next, Steele tried to attack Obama by pointing out that during the campaign he insulated himself against charges that he's a dove by calling for a ramp up in Afghanistan. Fair enough. But then he compounded the mess by slipping into a kind of auto-pilot mode where he just started criticizing the Afghan war as a disaster and unwinnable because it's now Obama's war. Result: Steele said that Obama chose this war, that we shouldn't be there, and we now can't win.
Anyone got a better explanation?
Robert Byrd, Truth, and Peace 29JUN10
SENATOR Robert Byrd (D-WV) died Monday, 28 JUN 2010 at the age of 92. He was the longest serving Senator in the history of our nation and a great man and a Christian, a man of faith. Rest in peace Senator Byrd.
"War appears inevitable. But, I continue to hope that the cloud will lift."
- Sen. Robert Byrd, in a speech delivered on the Senate floor on March 19, 2003, in opposition to the war in Iraq. Sen. Byrd passed away on Monday. (Source: Salon.com)
by Valerie Elverton Dixon 06-29-2010
"War appears inevitable. But, I continue to hope that the cloud will lift."
- Sen. Robert Byrd, in a speech delivered on the Senate floor on March 19, 2003, in opposition to the war in Iraq. Sen. Byrd passed away on Monday. (Source: Salon.com)
by Valerie Elverton Dixon 06-29-2010
Truth is a two-edged sword that cuts both ways. We may wield it against an enemy with great satisfaction. However, the truth also cuts us, and does so with a fare-thee-well. Senator Robert Byrd was a man who had the courage to face the truth about himself and about his nation. He had the grace and the humility to acknowledge his mistakes and to apologize for them. He could work with former rivals until they became friends. He had the strength to stand against the logic of war and insist upon the imperative of truth-telling. No truth, no justice, no peace.
Byrd started his life among the often forgotten, poorest of the poor in the United States. He grew up in the coal fields of West Virginia. He started attending Sunday school after a kind-hearted man gave him two pairs of socks so that he could attend church without embarrassment. Byrd was smart, hardworking and ambitious, joining the Klu Klux Klan in order to meet important people.
From the earliest days of his political career, he took criticism for this decision. He has apologized for this aspect of his past. He said: “I know now that I was wrong. Intolerance has no place in America. I apologized a thousand times … and I don’t mind apologizing over and over again. I can’t erase what happened.” It was a leader of the Klan who encouraged him to go into politics.
As long as he represented the parochial prejudices of the South, he stood against civil rights, famously filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, later, after he won battles for leadership in the Senate, especially the battle for Senate Democratic Whip against Senator Edward Kennedy, his views became more liberal. He thought that leadership made him responsible to a larger constituency.
He supported civil rights legislation and the Equal Rights Amendment; he voted with liberals on housing, unemployment benefits, Social Security and public works projects. Most recently, he voted for health care reform legislation and suggested that it be named for his good friend and former rival, Edward Kennedy. He brought millions of dollars in federal money to West Virginia, and the people continued to elect him.
However, as a person who writes peace theory, I especially appreciate Byrd’s stance against the war in Iraq. He never wavered in his insistence that the American people know the truth about why this nation entered that war. He thought it was an overreach of presidential power and a cowardly display by the legislative branch. He thought that a glaring weakness of our government was lies. He wrote: “Lies at the top of government can have a deeply corrosive effect on the quality of our democracy for which there are no ready answers.” People cannot trust government officials who lie, and thus democracy is threatened.
Peace theory holds that violent conflict happens when we act on a lie or an error in judgment based on deception. This is especially true when we fall into the easiest and most common deception of all, that the Other, the enemy Other is less than, less human than we and is worthy of segregation, discrimination, or annihilation. Senator Byrd, through the course of his long life learned this lesson and has left it as a legacy for a nation ever working toward its more perfect self. Thank you, Senator Byrd. May you rest in peace.
Dr. Valerie Elverton Dixon is an independent scholar who publishes lectures and essays at JustPeaceTheory.com. She received her PhD in religion and society from Temple University and taught Christian ethics at United Theological Seminary and Andover Newton Theological School.
Byrd started his life among the often forgotten, poorest of the poor in the United States. He grew up in the coal fields of West Virginia. He started attending Sunday school after a kind-hearted man gave him two pairs of socks so that he could attend church without embarrassment. Byrd was smart, hardworking and ambitious, joining the Klu Klux Klan in order to meet important people.
From the earliest days of his political career, he took criticism for this decision. He has apologized for this aspect of his past. He said: “I know now that I was wrong. Intolerance has no place in America. I apologized a thousand times … and I don’t mind apologizing over and over again. I can’t erase what happened.” It was a leader of the Klan who encouraged him to go into politics.
As long as he represented the parochial prejudices of the South, he stood against civil rights, famously filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, later, after he won battles for leadership in the Senate, especially the battle for Senate Democratic Whip against Senator Edward Kennedy, his views became more liberal. He thought that leadership made him responsible to a larger constituency.
He supported civil rights legislation and the Equal Rights Amendment; he voted with liberals on housing, unemployment benefits, Social Security and public works projects. Most recently, he voted for health care reform legislation and suggested that it be named for his good friend and former rival, Edward Kennedy. He brought millions of dollars in federal money to West Virginia, and the people continued to elect him.
However, as a person who writes peace theory, I especially appreciate Byrd’s stance against the war in Iraq. He never wavered in his insistence that the American people know the truth about why this nation entered that war. He thought it was an overreach of presidential power and a cowardly display by the legislative branch. He thought that a glaring weakness of our government was lies. He wrote: “Lies at the top of government can have a deeply corrosive effect on the quality of our democracy for which there are no ready answers.” People cannot trust government officials who lie, and thus democracy is threatened.
Peace theory holds that violent conflict happens when we act on a lie or an error in judgment based on deception. This is especially true when we fall into the easiest and most common deception of all, that the Other, the enemy Other is less than, less human than we and is worthy of segregation, discrimination, or annihilation. Senator Byrd, through the course of his long life learned this lesson and has left it as a legacy for a nation ever working toward its more perfect self. Thank you, Senator Byrd. May you rest in peace.
Dr. Valerie Elverton Dixon is an independent scholar who publishes lectures and essays at JustPeaceTheory.com. She received her PhD in religion and society from Temple University and taught Christian ethics at United Theological Seminary and Andover Newton Theological School.IT'S TIME TO END THIS WAR (OR DO WE JUST BUILD ANOTHER MEMORIAL WALL?) from SOJO 1jul10
Expresses my views better than I can.....
After his unanimous approval by the Senate Armed Services Committee as the new Afghan war commander, General David Petraeus was pictured in The Washington Post with a broad smile and thumbs up proclaiming, “We are all firmly united in seeking to forge unity of effort.” No, we’re not, General. No, we’re not. In fact, I believe it’s time to begin to unite the religious community against the war in Afghanistan.
Following last week’s resignation of General Stanley McChrystal as commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, confirmation hearings began right away for Petraeus to become his replacement. But the real issue is not replacing one general with another because of inappropriate comments and insubordination -- it’s the fatally flawed war policy in Afghanistan.
In February 1968, North Vietnamese and Viet Cong attacks erupted throughout South Vietnam, showing that U.S. political and military leaders’ optimistic pronouncements that the end of the war was near were not true. By then, it was clear to many that the war was not winnable, yet more than half of U.S. casualties in Vietnam occurred from that spring until the end of the war (35,000 of the total 58,000).
I have walked the line at the Vietnam Memorial Wall many times, with tears running down my face as I read the names of my generation who were killed there. And the painful remorse over that awful war is even greater when I remember that the majority of those who died in Vietnam were killed after we knew we would ultimately have to come home without “winning” the unwinnable war. The last of the many reasons for staying in Vietnam that I recall President Nixon saying was to come home “with our heads held high.” We didn’t.
After 9/11, an international police action to bring the perpetrators of that horrible crime to justice would have been one thing. But to begin a war and then an occupation of Afghanistan was the wrong policy, quickly killing more Afghan innocents than the American innocents who died on September 11. It was then further compromised by the completely mistaken and morally unjustifiable war in Iraq.
When will we ever learn? The failed policies are all too familiar: a counter-insurgency strategy requiring more and more troops; creating the continued presence of a large U.S. military force; increasing the resentment and hostility of the Afghan people at a foreign occupation; trying to create a central government out of an ungovernable tribal society; and depending on an incompetent and utterly corrupt political ruler and regime.
An effective anti-terrorism policy was never really tried and was replaced by a “war on terrorism” which has failed. Here’s the metric: Has our primarily military policy in Afghanistan and Iraq killed more terrorists than it has recruited? I think we know the answer to that. The math of terrorism is against us. And our military obsession has made the most important question impossible to ask and even unpatriotic to consider: How might we reduce and defeat the causes of terrorism in the first place?
A new strategy in Afghanistan that focuses on humanitarian assistance and sustainable economic development, along with international policing, was also never tried. It could have been led by NGOs, both faith-based and secular, who have been in the region for years, have become quite indigenous, and are much more trusted by the people of these countries than are the U.S. military. But such assistance would have to be provided, as much as possible, by independent civilian and non-governmental organizations -- both international and local -- rather than using aid as a government adjunct to military operations.
Yes, after taking over the country, we do have a responsibility not to simply walk away. There are ethical and moral issues that need to be considered: legitimately protecting Americans from further terrorism; protecting the lives of U.S. servicemen and women; protecting the Afghan people from the collateral damage of war; defending women from the Taliban; genuinely supporting democracy; and of course, saving innocent lives from the collateral damage of war, to name a few.
And yes, effective development needs security. We could have focused on economic development, starting in areas that are secure and then growing to additional parts of the country, but providing only the security necessary to protect the rebuilding of the country. That kind of peacekeeping security would have been more likely to gain the international support we needed in Afghanistan, both from Europe and even from Arab and Muslim countries.
Non-military strategies should have led the way, rather than the other way around, as counter-insurgency doctrine requires. We should not have made aid and development weapons of war by tying them so closely to the military; rather, we should have only provided the security support needed for the development work to succeed -- led by respected, well-established international organizations with strong local connections.
The current strategy, even with a new commander, will only lead to more casualties -- U.S. and Afghan -- while likely strengthening popular support for the Taliban as an anti-occupation force. It is a strategy of endless war that is ultimately doomed to failure.
Last Sunday, the photo on the front page of The New York Times broke my heart. It showed the family of a military serviceman just before he was redeployed to Afghanistan. He was in his fatigues, holding his 6-month-old son with a look of deep pain on his face, with his wife resting her head against his shoulder. The article told story after story about families being separated by repeated deployments in an endless war. Soldiers who are fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters are dying for a wrong-headed, ineffective, failed, doomed, arrogant, theologically unjust, and yes, immoral war policy. And of course, the ones dying are not the young people headed for our best universities and successful professional careers, but rather they are the ones who have fewer options, or who see the military as their only option. Those with the least opportunities, and their families, are again the ones to sacrifice and suffer. It’s not right and it’s not fair.
The number of U.S. service members killed in June was the highest for one month since this now nine-year war began. It’s time to end this war. Or should we just start building another wall?
After his unanimous approval by the Senate Armed Services Committee as the new Afghan war commander, General David Petraeus was pictured in The Washington Post with a broad smile and thumbs up proclaiming, “We are all firmly united in seeking to forge unity of effort.” No, we’re not, General. No, we’re not. In fact, I believe it’s time to begin to unite the religious community against the war in Afghanistan.
Following last week’s resignation of General Stanley McChrystal as commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, confirmation hearings began right away for Petraeus to become his replacement. But the real issue is not replacing one general with another because of inappropriate comments and insubordination -- it’s the fatally flawed war policy in Afghanistan.
In February 1968, North Vietnamese and Viet Cong attacks erupted throughout South Vietnam, showing that U.S. political and military leaders’ optimistic pronouncements that the end of the war was near were not true. By then, it was clear to many that the war was not winnable, yet more than half of U.S. casualties in Vietnam occurred from that spring until the end of the war (35,000 of the total 58,000).
I have walked the line at the Vietnam Memorial Wall many times, with tears running down my face as I read the names of my generation who were killed there. And the painful remorse over that awful war is even greater when I remember that the majority of those who died in Vietnam were killed after we knew we would ultimately have to come home without “winning” the unwinnable war. The last of the many reasons for staying in Vietnam that I recall President Nixon saying was to come home “with our heads held high.” We didn’t.
After 9/11, an international police action to bring the perpetrators of that horrible crime to justice would have been one thing. But to begin a war and then an occupation of Afghanistan was the wrong policy, quickly killing more Afghan innocents than the American innocents who died on September 11. It was then further compromised by the completely mistaken and morally unjustifiable war in Iraq.
When will we ever learn? The failed policies are all too familiar: a counter-insurgency strategy requiring more and more troops; creating the continued presence of a large U.S. military force; increasing the resentment and hostility of the Afghan people at a foreign occupation; trying to create a central government out of an ungovernable tribal society; and depending on an incompetent and utterly corrupt political ruler and regime.
An effective anti-terrorism policy was never really tried and was replaced by a “war on terrorism” which has failed. Here’s the metric: Has our primarily military policy in Afghanistan and Iraq killed more terrorists than it has recruited? I think we know the answer to that. The math of terrorism is against us. And our military obsession has made the most important question impossible to ask and even unpatriotic to consider: How might we reduce and defeat the causes of terrorism in the first place?
A new strategy in Afghanistan that focuses on humanitarian assistance and sustainable economic development, along with international policing, was also never tried. It could have been led by NGOs, both faith-based and secular, who have been in the region for years, have become quite indigenous, and are much more trusted by the people of these countries than are the U.S. military. But such assistance would have to be provided, as much as possible, by independent civilian and non-governmental organizations -- both international and local -- rather than using aid as a government adjunct to military operations.
Yes, after taking over the country, we do have a responsibility not to simply walk away. There are ethical and moral issues that need to be considered: legitimately protecting Americans from further terrorism; protecting the lives of U.S. servicemen and women; protecting the Afghan people from the collateral damage of war; defending women from the Taliban; genuinely supporting democracy; and of course, saving innocent lives from the collateral damage of war, to name a few.
And yes, effective development needs security. We could have focused on economic development, starting in areas that are secure and then growing to additional parts of the country, but providing only the security necessary to protect the rebuilding of the country. That kind of peacekeeping security would have been more likely to gain the international support we needed in Afghanistan, both from Europe and even from Arab and Muslim countries.
Non-military strategies should have led the way, rather than the other way around, as counter-insurgency doctrine requires. We should not have made aid and development weapons of war by tying them so closely to the military; rather, we should have only provided the security support needed for the development work to succeed -- led by respected, well-established international organizations with strong local connections.
The current strategy, even with a new commander, will only lead to more casualties -- U.S. and Afghan -- while likely strengthening popular support for the Taliban as an anti-occupation force. It is a strategy of endless war that is ultimately doomed to failure.
Last Sunday, the photo on the front page of The New York Times broke my heart. It showed the family of a military serviceman just before he was redeployed to Afghanistan. He was in his fatigues, holding his 6-month-old son with a look of deep pain on his face, with his wife resting her head against his shoulder. The article told story after story about families being separated by repeated deployments in an endless war. Soldiers who are fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters are dying for a wrong-headed, ineffective, failed, doomed, arrogant, theologically unjust, and yes, immoral war policy. And of course, the ones dying are not the young people headed for our best universities and successful professional careers, but rather they are the ones who have fewer options, or who see the military as their only option. Those with the least opportunities, and their families, are again the ones to sacrifice and suffer. It’s not right and it’s not fair.
The number of U.S. service members killed in June was the highest for one month since this now nine-year war began. It’s time to end this war. Or should we just start building another wall?
Accomplishments of the Obama Administration 1JUL10
BEING an extreme left winger in my politics (I am basically a Christian Socialist) I have not been happy with all the decisions and actions by the Obama administration BUT all in all he is trying to address the problems and issues facing our nation to the benefit of all Americans, Democrats and Independents and Republicans. Check out this video outlining the administration's accomplishments in less than two years......
FRIENDS
Each friend represents a world in us, a world possibly not born until they arrive, and it is only by this meeting that a new world is born. - Anaïs Nin, from a diary entry in The Diary of Anaïs Nin
Broke bread and shared hummus, cheese, grapes and wine on a beautiful afternoon with Pam & Robert on their deck with Elsie and Chris , we laughed and talked about anything and everything and just enjoyed each other and the glorious beauty of the day. Life is good.
Broke bread and shared hummus, cheese, grapes and wine on a beautiful afternoon with Pam & Robert on their deck with Elsie and Chris , we laughed and talked about anything and everything and just enjoyed each other and the glorious beauty of the day. Life is good.
GET CLEAN ENERGY LEGISLATION PASSED NOW! ACTION FROM THE NRDC
HERE is a critical call to action from the NRDC Action Fund demanding President Obama and the Senate pass clean energy legislation. Please participate by calling your Senators and the White House (I did) and tell them to get this legislation passed.
Last Thursday, Democrats held a special caucus meeting on comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation. According to Majority Leader Harry Reid, "It was really very, very powerful. It was inspirational, quite frankly."
Senator John Kerry, who has been a tremendous leader on clean energy and climate issues, added, "This was without doubt one of the most motivating, energized, and even inspirational caucuses that I've been part of since I've been here in the Senate in 26 years."
And Senator Joe Lieberman, who has partnered with Senator Kerry in crafting a bill with a chance to become law, called it "absolutely thrilling…an uprising of the rank and file members of the caucus speaking with passion and purpose in favor of enacting strong comprehensive energy independence legislation this year."
The bottom line is this: we're definitely making progress toward our goal, and we certainly couldn't have done it without you. However, as the old saying goes, "There's no rest for the weary." Today, that expression certainly rings true, because we need your help more than ever.
Earlier this week, President Obama met with leading senators on energy and environmental issues at the White House to discuss possible paths forward in the weeks ahead. In the aftermath of that meeting, let's remind them that they need to move decisively and quickly on climate and clean energy NOW! Today, with the planet warming up inexorably, we need to make sure that our leaders in Washington, DC are feeling some of that heat. In the coming days and weeks, please help us keep the pressure on. If we do, together we can push this crucial legislation over the finish line, for our children's future and for the future health of our planet.
Sincerely,
Peter Lehner
Executive Director
NRDC Action Fund
ECENT BLOG POSTS
Follow us on Twitter
Sen. Blanche Lincoln
Sen. Mark Pryor
Florida
Sen. George LeMieux
Indiana
Sen. Evan Bayh
Sen. Richard Lugar
Louisiana
Sen. Mary Landrieu
Maine
Sen. Susan Collins
Sen. Olympia Snowe
Massachusetts
Sen. Scott Brown
Michigan
Sen. Carl Levin
Sen. Debbie Stabenow
Missouri
Sen. Claire McCaskill
Montana
Sen. Max Baucus
Sen. Jon Tester
Nevada
Sen. Harry Reid
New Hampshire
Sen. Judd Gregg
New Mexico
Sen. Jeff Bingaman
Sen. Tom Udall
North Dakota
Sen. Kent Conrad
Sen. Byron Dorgan
Ohio
Sen. Sherrod Brown
Sen. George Voinovich
Pennsylvania
Sen. Robert Casey
Sen. Arlen Specter
South Dakota
Sen. Tim Johnson
Virginia
Sen. Mark Warner
Sen. Jim Webb
West Virginia
Sen. John Rockefeller
Wisconsin
Sen. Russell Feingold
Sen. Herb Kohl
TWITTER UPDATES
- American public turns against offshore drilling, sending clear message about priorities for meeting our #energy needs http://bit.ly/cGVMN0 8 minutes ago
- Will Sen. Jeff Bingaman be the one to push the stalled #climatebill through? http://politi.co/deNMJ2 about an hour ago
- Ohio Sen Brown: “The stakes couldn’t be higher – done right, a #cleanenergy bill will be a jobs bill” http://bit.ly/bZqMOT about 17 hours ago
- http://tinyurl.com/2a3a9fr "Climate Scientist Michael Mann Fully Exonerated of Misconduct by University" about 18 hours ago
- http://tinyurl.com/276evpn Remember, Cap-and-Trade Was Originally a Free-Market, Conservative Idea about 18 hours ago
Follow us on Twitter Can You Do It Again?
Please call the White House and tell the President he needs to lead. Tell him to remind the Senate that:
- Our national security will be greatly enhanced if we break our addition to foreign oil.
- Tomorrow's economy, including millions of potential green jobs, depends on our jumpstarting a clean energy revolution today.
- The polar ice caps are melting, storms and heat waves are getting stronger, there's no more time to waste.
- For all of these reasons, we need action now!
202-456-1414
If your senator is listed below, please call and tell them they need to step up to the plate. Tell them that:
- Our national security will be greatly enhanced if we break our addition to foreign oil.
- Tomorrow's economy, including millions of potential green jobs, depends on our jumpstarting a clean energy revolution today.
- The polar ice caps are melting, storms and heat waves are getting stronger, there's no more time to waste.
- For all of these reasons, we need action now!
202-224-3121
ArkansasSen. Blanche Lincoln
Sen. Mark Pryor
Florida
Sen. George LeMieux
Indiana
Sen. Evan Bayh
Sen. Richard Lugar
Louisiana
Sen. Mary Landrieu
Maine
Sen. Susan Collins
Sen. Olympia Snowe
Massachusetts
Sen. Scott Brown
Michigan
Sen. Carl Levin
Sen. Debbie Stabenow
Missouri
Sen. Claire McCaskill
Montana
Sen. Max Baucus
Sen. Jon Tester
Nevada
Sen. Harry Reid
New Hampshire
Sen. Judd Gregg
New Mexico
Sen. Jeff Bingaman
Sen. Tom Udall
North Dakota
Sen. Kent Conrad
Sen. Byron Dorgan
Ohio
Sen. Sherrod Brown
Sen. George Voinovich
Pennsylvania
Sen. Robert Casey
Sen. Arlen Specter
South Dakota
Sen. Tim Johnson
Virginia
Sen. Mark Warner
Sen. Jim Webb
West Virginia
Sen. John Rockefeller
Wisconsin
Sen. Russell Feingold
Sen. Herb Kohl
Home | About | Join the Fight | Support Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | © Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund
FIND INSURANCE FOR SMALL BUSINESSES, THE UNINSURED AND THOSE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS AT HEALTHCARE.GOV 1JUL10 &U.S. Health Care Expensive And Underperforming: Study 24JUN10
For many families and small businesses, finding the right insurance plan has meant spending hours on the phone deciphering confusing insurance company lingo and reading way too much fine print. Today finding health insurance just got easier with the launch of HealthCare.gov.
The innovative new website developed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services helps you understand all the health insurance options available in your local area for you and your family. After answering just a few basic questions, the website's insurance finder will identify public and private coverage options that might be right for you.
From HealthCare.gov you can receive updates on the implementation of the new law and, as the website grows, you will be able to research health plan quality ratings, learn about disease prevention, and compare health plan prices all in one place.
This website is just the beginning of the transparency and peace of mind promised by the new law to check the insurance companies' bad practices and greedy behavior. HealthCare.gov represents an important step in implementation and allows us all to take health care into our own hands.
HealthCare.gov represents an important step as we move forward to end the insurance company's stranglehold over the American health care system. We hope that this resource will move us closer the peace of mind promised by the new law.
In Solidarity,
Melinda Gibson
Health Care for America Now
P.S. Uninsured due to a pre-existing condition? Check out the new high risk insurance pools at HealthCare.gov.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/24/us-health-care-expensive_n_624248.html
We'll have to wait and see how well the United States men's soccer team fares now that they are in the knockout stages of international competition at the World Cup, but if there's one thing we can all take pride in is the fact that we are the Champions of Health Care! Top prize goes to the system that best combines mediocrity with stratospheric costs, right?
No? Well, that's bad news then, because according to a new study by the Commonwealth Fund that relieves health care reform proponents of having to cite outdated statistics from the World Health Organization, that's precisely the sort of health care we have. And it's all been rendered in handy-dandy chart form:
Nonetheless, I expect no abatement in the tendency of anti-health care reform wags to bleat, "Bu-bu-but, the United States has the best health care in the world!" That's true, in the same way that José Andrés's Minibar has the best molecular cuisine in Washington, DC -- if your life depends on having it, you'd better have the financial security of Ezekiel Emanuel and Antonin Scalia.
We'll have to wait and see how well the United States men's soccer team fares now that they are in the knockout stages of international competition at the World Cup, but if there's one thing we can all take pride in is the fact that we are the Champions of Health Care! Top prize goes to the system that best combines mediocrity with stratospheric costs, right?
No? Well, that's bad news then, because according to a new study by the Commonwealth Fund that relieves health care reform proponents of having to cite outdated statistics from the World Health Organization, that's precisely the sort of health care we have. And it's all been rendered in handy-dandy chart form:
Nonetheless, I expect no abatement in the tendency of anti-health care reform wags to bleat, "Bu-bu-but, the United States has the best health care in the world!" That's true, in the same way that José Andrés's Minibar has the best molecular cuisine in Washington, DC -- if your life depends on having it, you'd better have the financial security of Ezekiel Emanuel and Antonin Scalia.
01 July 2010
Does Congress have the courage to leave Afghanistan? CREDO ACTION 30JUN10 & The Courage to Leave 11JUN10
IF you are like me and are tired of the waste of life and money in Afghanistan (and Iraq for that matter) I hope you will participate in this petition from Credo Action by clicking the header of this post.
The Courage to Leave" was the headline of a powerful Bob Herbert editorial that was published three weeks ago in the New York Times.
The Courage to Leave" was the headline of a powerful Bob Herbert editorial that was published three weeks ago in the New York Times.
His subject was Afghanistan. He wrote:1
Ultimately, the public is at fault for this catastrophe in Afghanistan, where more than 1,000 G.I.'s have now lost their lives. If we don't have the courage as a people to fight and share in the sacrifices when our nation is at war, if we're unwilling to seriously think about the war and hold our leaders accountable for the way it is conducted, if we're not even willing to pay for it, then we should at least have the courage to pull our valiant forces out of it.
This week we have the opportunity to urge Congress to demonstrate the courage to leave.
One of the best tactics we have as citizens for bringing our troops home from the Afghan quagmire is to convince Congress to end the war by controlling how it's funded. This opportunity comes when Congress is asked to vote on the supplemental funding bill. Yet time and again our elected representatives have enabled the unchecked occupation of Afghanistan by giving money to fund the war without any strings attached.
The House could vote on the supplemental funding bill for the war in Afghanistan as early as tomorrow. So take action today. Click here to automatically sign the petition.
In a recent Washington Post — ABC News poll, 53 percent of Americans now say the war is not worth its costs.2 No one has successfully occupied Afghanistan since Genghis Khan, and there is little reason to believe that our military presence will be more successful than that of the Soviets or the British before us.
Thank you for working to stop the occupation of Afghanistan.
Becky Bond, Political Director
CREDO Action from Working Assets
CREDO Action from Working Assets
1"The Courage to Leave," New York Times, June 12, 2010.
2"Public remains unfriendly on Afghanistan," Washington Post, June 10, 2010.
2"Public remains unfriendly on Afghanistan," Washington Post, June 10, 2010.
une 11, 2010
|
Listen All Y'all, It's a Republican Sabotage 30JUN10
Here is a great post from Huffington Post laying out what is really going on in Washington.....the republicans are deliberately sabotaging the Obama administrations attempts to address the economic problems of the nation to the detriment of all Americans except the wealthy (big surprise there). It is time for the Democratic Party and the Obama administration to start calling a spade a spade and make the American people aware of what is going on and take on the republicans. Failure to do so will result in the Democrats loosing Congress and will send this nation into a deeper economic and moral depression.
Tuesday morning on CNBC, the spazzy white guys in lower Manhattan were debating how the administration and Congress can best repair the economy, and mainly the jobless numbers. At one point, Rick Santelli, the hyperkinetic shoutcaster and instigator of the tea party movement, began to flail around, waving his arms above his head while yelling, "Stop spending! Stop spending! Stop spending!"
And contrary to accusations from one of the other spazzy white panelists, Santelli insisted he wasn't calling for more tax cuts. Just a freeze in government spending. Somehow.
Fine. Show us another time in American history when a spending freeze -- and a spending freeze alone -- jump-started an economic recovery following a deep recession and high unemployment. Show us. Where in the world is Santelli getting this?
It doesn't really matter from which hole Santelli's latest television meltdown was extricated. Suffice to say, there is no historical precedent for any such thing. In fact, the often-referenced spending cuts of 1937 caused the opposite effect: a backslide in the economic recovery during the Great Depression. Oh, sorry. There we go again -- referencing actual "history" instead of just screeching incongruous, contradictory and unsubstantiated nonsense, which seems to be the accepted style of discourse these days.
Santelli's rant is just another performance in a broader strategy by the Republicans and tea party movement to deliberately sabotage the economic recovery. Not unlike Santelli's "stop spending" idea, this is a strategy which also, to the best of my knowledge, has no historical precedent. For the first time ever -- and this is worth repeating -- one of the two major political parties in America is sabotaging a delicate economic recovery for the sake of humiliating the president and his party, and subsequently recapturing a political majority.
More than a year ago, Rush Limbaugh both predicted this and set the table for it to occur. They want the president to fail, and now it's clear that they're willing to take the economic recovery down in order to make it so. Is there any doubt who leads the Republican Party?
Most recently, the Republicans have been filibustering all efforts to create jobs and to offer a safety net for the millions of Americans who continue to seek employment. They successfully filibustered the jobs bill after they, along with their Conservadem enablers, whittled the thing down to nothing. And this week, House Republicans successfully blocked the extension of unemployment benefits due to a two-thirds majority rule (who said super-majorities were reserved for the Senate?).
So how does this sabotage play out?
It begins with the cynical exploitation of the angry, screeching Republican base. Unlike the Democrats during a Republican congressional majority, it's clear that Republican voters generally don't care whether their lawmakers actually attain any legislative accomplishments short of blocking the other guys. In other words, there's no political demand from the GOP base to actually pass anything resembling a conservative piece of legislation. Consequently, there's no need to barter or compromise with the Democrats.
All they have to do is to block, and they'll use any means necessary to do so, be it self-contradiction or utter ridiculousness. Speaking of which, we have Tom Coburn (R-OK) who insists he's a fiscal hawk beating the "stop spending" drum, voting against unemployment benefits and filibustering jobs bills, while, at the same, time voting to continue paying $35 billion in corporate welfare to Big Oil every year. Yesterday, Coburn and Mitch McConnell, blocked the Homeless Women Veterans and Homeless Veterans With Children Act. Why? "Stop spending!" of course.
So the president has no choice but to zigzag his agenda through this Senate with those arcane filibuster rules, and in an era when the Republicans are given a free pass from their dittoheads and tea party hooples to scrap the GOP legislative agenda in lieu of obstructing the economic recovery (among other things).
They're counting on independents and voters in both parties to not grasp the intricate realities of the Senate. The Republican-enabling Conservadem senators often stymie the Democratic majorities, and the complicated filibuster/cloture procedures grant lopsided power to the minority party. They're counting on the most simplistic and obvious reaction: the Democrats are the majority party so they should be able to do... something. And since they can't, maybe the Republicans can. That's precisely how the Republicans might end up winning.
But if anyone believes a Republican majority in Congress will suddenly make things better, they're absolutely mistaken in so many ways. At least now, Congress and the president are able to pass reforms that will actually help real people regardless of party or politics. These achievements are often compromised and watered-down (how can they not be with this Senate?), and we might not agree with the motives of every line item, but despite how it's being painted in various circles, there hasn't been an era of significant reform like this one in generations. Yet, if the Republicans manage to take the House or Senate or both, not only will Congress "stop spending," but literally nothing will get done. Nothing. Except for endless investigations of the administration by zealots like Darrell Issa.
That's precisely what they want.
To get to that stage, the next step in the sabotage has to be continued high unemployment with the added stink of unemployed Americans losing their benefits and health insurance (no COBRA subsidies). In the simplest terms, the economic ripple effect will radiate concentrically into a decline in consumer spending, increased foreclosures, a lag in the house market and so forth. And due to a lethal mixture of Republican cynicism, voter ignorance and traditional media hackery, the president will ultimately be blamed for the continued pain -- paving the way for Wingnut Republican President X and mission accomplished.
"Stop spending!" is bullshit. Yes, long term debt at this level is ultimately unsustainable but so is long term unemployment and economic misery -- what Paul Krugman is calling the "Third Depression." But the president and the Democrats are trapped inside a box made of Johnny-come-lately deficit-reduction hysterics. There's very little the president can do at this point to ameliorate the jobless numbers, and that's proof the sabotage is working. Spending on job creation is no longer a practical option, so those numbers will remain trapped in this dead zone of nine or ten percent. Somehow, the Republicans have been able to convince enough people that "Stop spending!" is a better idea than creating jobs and providing unemployment benefits to one out of every ten Americans. One out of ten!
The Republicans are willing to let one out of every ten of your friends go broke in the name of foiling the president and reclaiming control over the government (which they say they hate). Think about that. They have no plan for fixing unemployment. No matter how often the president acquiesces to Republican demands, they still vote against anything the president intends to sign into law. They're using the filibuster. They're exploiting ignorance. They're lying about deficits. They're contradicting their own positions, sometimes in the same day or even the same sentence. They're passing off gibberish as statesmanship. They're holding the American economy hostage in the most obvious political ratfuck since the Nixon years, only this time, the stakes are deadly serious. Your job. Your money. The future of the economy. They're sabotaging all of it.
But "stop spending" fits nicely on a t-shirt or on a misspelled protest sign. So that's something at least.
Tuesday morning on CNBC, the spazzy white guys in lower Manhattan were debating how the administration and Congress can best repair the economy, and mainly the jobless numbers. At one point, Rick Santelli, the hyperkinetic shoutcaster and instigator of the tea party movement, began to flail around, waving his arms above his head while yelling, "Stop spending! Stop spending! Stop spending!"
And contrary to accusations from one of the other spazzy white panelists, Santelli insisted he wasn't calling for more tax cuts. Just a freeze in government spending. Somehow.
Fine. Show us another time in American history when a spending freeze -- and a spending freeze alone -- jump-started an economic recovery following a deep recession and high unemployment. Show us. Where in the world is Santelli getting this?
It doesn't really matter from which hole Santelli's latest television meltdown was extricated. Suffice to say, there is no historical precedent for any such thing. In fact, the often-referenced spending cuts of 1937 caused the opposite effect: a backslide in the economic recovery during the Great Depression. Oh, sorry. There we go again -- referencing actual "history" instead of just screeching incongruous, contradictory and unsubstantiated nonsense, which seems to be the accepted style of discourse these days.
Santelli's rant is just another performance in a broader strategy by the Republicans and tea party movement to deliberately sabotage the economic recovery. Not unlike Santelli's "stop spending" idea, this is a strategy which also, to the best of my knowledge, has no historical precedent. For the first time ever -- and this is worth repeating -- one of the two major political parties in America is sabotaging a delicate economic recovery for the sake of humiliating the president and his party, and subsequently recapturing a political majority.
More than a year ago, Rush Limbaugh both predicted this and set the table for it to occur. They want the president to fail, and now it's clear that they're willing to take the economic recovery down in order to make it so. Is there any doubt who leads the Republican Party?
Most recently, the Republicans have been filibustering all efforts to create jobs and to offer a safety net for the millions of Americans who continue to seek employment. They successfully filibustered the jobs bill after they, along with their Conservadem enablers, whittled the thing down to nothing. And this week, House Republicans successfully blocked the extension of unemployment benefits due to a two-thirds majority rule (who said super-majorities were reserved for the Senate?).
So how does this sabotage play out?
It begins with the cynical exploitation of the angry, screeching Republican base. Unlike the Democrats during a Republican congressional majority, it's clear that Republican voters generally don't care whether their lawmakers actually attain any legislative accomplishments short of blocking the other guys. In other words, there's no political demand from the GOP base to actually pass anything resembling a conservative piece of legislation. Consequently, there's no need to barter or compromise with the Democrats.
All they have to do is to block, and they'll use any means necessary to do so, be it self-contradiction or utter ridiculousness. Speaking of which, we have Tom Coburn (R-OK) who insists he's a fiscal hawk beating the "stop spending" drum, voting against unemployment benefits and filibustering jobs bills, while, at the same, time voting to continue paying $35 billion in corporate welfare to Big Oil every year. Yesterday, Coburn and Mitch McConnell, blocked the Homeless Women Veterans and Homeless Veterans With Children Act. Why? "Stop spending!" of course.
So the president has no choice but to zigzag his agenda through this Senate with those arcane filibuster rules, and in an era when the Republicans are given a free pass from their dittoheads and tea party hooples to scrap the GOP legislative agenda in lieu of obstructing the economic recovery (among other things).
They're counting on independents and voters in both parties to not grasp the intricate realities of the Senate. The Republican-enabling Conservadem senators often stymie the Democratic majorities, and the complicated filibuster/cloture procedures grant lopsided power to the minority party. They're counting on the most simplistic and obvious reaction: the Democrats are the majority party so they should be able to do... something. And since they can't, maybe the Republicans can. That's precisely how the Republicans might end up winning.
But if anyone believes a Republican majority in Congress will suddenly make things better, they're absolutely mistaken in so many ways. At least now, Congress and the president are able to pass reforms that will actually help real people regardless of party or politics. These achievements are often compromised and watered-down (how can they not be with this Senate?), and we might not agree with the motives of every line item, but despite how it's being painted in various circles, there hasn't been an era of significant reform like this one in generations. Yet, if the Republicans manage to take the House or Senate or both, not only will Congress "stop spending," but literally nothing will get done. Nothing. Except for endless investigations of the administration by zealots like Darrell Issa.
That's precisely what they want.
To get to that stage, the next step in the sabotage has to be continued high unemployment with the added stink of unemployed Americans losing their benefits and health insurance (no COBRA subsidies). In the simplest terms, the economic ripple effect will radiate concentrically into a decline in consumer spending, increased foreclosures, a lag in the house market and so forth. And due to a lethal mixture of Republican cynicism, voter ignorance and traditional media hackery, the president will ultimately be blamed for the continued pain -- paving the way for Wingnut Republican President X and mission accomplished.
"Stop spending!" is bullshit. Yes, long term debt at this level is ultimately unsustainable but so is long term unemployment and economic misery -- what Paul Krugman is calling the "Third Depression." But the president and the Democrats are trapped inside a box made of Johnny-come-lately deficit-reduction hysterics. There's very little the president can do at this point to ameliorate the jobless numbers, and that's proof the sabotage is working. Spending on job creation is no longer a practical option, so those numbers will remain trapped in this dead zone of nine or ten percent. Somehow, the Republicans have been able to convince enough people that "Stop spending!" is a better idea than creating jobs and providing unemployment benefits to one out of every ten Americans. One out of ten!
The Republicans are willing to let one out of every ten of your friends go broke in the name of foiling the president and reclaiming control over the government (which they say they hate). Think about that. They have no plan for fixing unemployment. No matter how often the president acquiesces to Republican demands, they still vote against anything the president intends to sign into law. They're using the filibuster. They're exploiting ignorance. They're lying about deficits. They're contradicting their own positions, sometimes in the same day or even the same sentence. They're passing off gibberish as statesmanship. They're holding the American economy hostage in the most obvious political ratfuck since the Nixon years, only this time, the stakes are deadly serious. Your job. Your money. The future of the economy. They're sabotaging all of it.
But "stop spending" fits nicely on a t-shirt or on a misspelled protest sign. So that's something at least.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)