Talk Radio's Middle Class Champion: A Podcast Interview With Thom Hartmann

Thom Hartmann is a dynamic voice for the aggrieved middle class. After one commercial break on a recent broadcast, the national radio host proudly declared,

“Welcome back to the Thom Hartman show where our talking points come from Jefferson and Madison, not some right wing think tank.”

He then asks, “Will the next election be hacked?” as he promotes Bobby Kennedy, Jr.’s article in Rolling Stone magazine that examines fraudulent vote counting to the benefit of Republican candidates.

Talkers Magazine noted,

“There's a buzz growing around nationally syndicated talk show host Thom Hartmann, whose nationally syndicated daily program is drawing high marks by those who are on the lookout for talk radio's ‘Great Liberal Hope.’”

His syndicated radio show is carried on more than 80 radio stations daily from noon to 3 PM Eastern Standard Time (EST) and Sunday mornings from 10 AM to 1 PM EST. It broadcasts 7 days a week on Sirius Satellite Radio, and is streamed live on the web from Radio Power, The White Rose Society, Air America Radio and CRN Digital into cable systems in 29 states.

Hartmann is also an award-winning, best selling author of fourteen books, an entrepreneur, and an innovator in the fields of psychiatry, ecology and economics. The former executive director of a residential treatment program for emotionally disturbed and abused children, Hartmann has helped set up hospitals, schools, famine relief programs, and communities for orphaned or blind children in Africa, Australia, Europe, India, Israel, Russian, South America and the United States.

Most recently Hartman authored, Screwed: The Undeclared War On the Middle Class - And What We Can Do About It (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.). The theme of Hartmann’s new book is captured in this paragraph from his introduction:

“When there is no American Dream, when there is no middle class, there cannot be real democracy. That’s why when elections are brought to nations that are in crisis or that don’t have a broad, stable, well-educated middle class – such as Egypt, Iraq, Iran and the Palestinian territories – the result is aristocrats, ‘strongmen,’ or theocrats exploiting those elections as a way of gaining decidedly undemocratic power.”

Hartmann graciously agreed to an interview with me about his new book and political philosophy. Please refer to the media player below. This interview can also be accessed for free via the Itunes Store by searching for "Intrepid Liberal Journal."


***********************************************************************************
ADDENDUM: My thanks to the Crooks and Liars website for linking my blog today!
***********************************************************************************

The Contrarian: A Podcast Interview With Professor Khaleel Mohammed

San Diego University’s Associate Professor of Religion, Khaleel Mohammed, PH.D is a controversy magnet. Born in the South American republic of Guyana and educated at Montreal’s McGill University, Professor Mohammed is a Muslim who believes Israel belongs to the Jews. Indeed, Professor Mohammed even references the Koran to support this claim. In an interview with FrontPageMagazine.com two years ago, he cited this passage:

“The Koran in Chapter 5: 20-21 states quite clearly: ‘Moses said to his people: O my people! Remember the bounty of God upon you when He bestowed prophets upon you, and made you kings and gave you that which had not been given to anyone before you amongst the nations. O my people! Enter the Holy Land which God has written for you, and do not turn tail, otherwise you will be losers.’”

Professor Mohammed also contends that violence in the Muslim world stems from politics not the Islamic faith. His opinions have provoked sharp rebukes from scholars who insist that Jihad, Anti-Semitism and fundamentalism are directly linked to the Koran itself. The academic believes those who link fundamentalism with the Koran are Islamophobes.

On June 25, 2004, he participated in a symposium sponsored by FrontPageMagazine.com with Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, and author Bat Ye'or. They engaged in a fascinating debate about the Koran’s semantics and politics in the Muslim world. Since that symposium the debate between Professor Mohammed and Robert Spencer has grown personal.

Overall, Professor Mohammed has two categories of critics: westerners such as Robert Spencer who regard him as an Islamic apologist and Muslims who believe him to be disloyal to their culture.

The professor considers himself a scholarly advocate for moderate Islam and he graciously agreed to an interview with me. Please refer to the media player below. This interview can also be accessed for free via the Itunes Store by searching for "Intrepid Liberal Journal."


********************************************************************************
ADDENDUM: Although Professor Mohammed is new to the blogosphere he expressed interest in both reviewing and responding to the comments of others. I hope he is able to. Also, please note that his website which I hyperlink above has not been updated and lists his title as “Assistant Professor” instead of “Associate Professor.” Hence, I mistakenly introduced him with the incorrect title during the podcast.

Reminiscing About the Future: George Bush's Resignation Speech On September 11, 2007

It appears Democrats will prevail this November and become the majority party in the House of Representatives. Republicans are likely to retain their majority in the Senate – although severely narrowed. John Conyers the ranking Democrat of the House Judiciary Committee has signaled his willingness to impeach President Bush if given the chance. Vice President Cheney may elude this fate if impeachable offenses can’t be linked to his office. Legally, the President is the “decider” regardless of the Vice President’s influence. Below is a dramatization of what may transpire using the PBS News Hour as a vehicle. The date is September 11, 2007.

JIM LEHRER: Good evening, I’m Jim Lehrer and welcome to a special broadcast of the News Hour. In a few moments, President George W. Bush will speak to the nation and formally resign. It’s only the second time in American history a president has resigned. Richard Nixon, our 37th president resigned under pressure from the Watergate scandal on August 8th, 1974. With me tonight are David Brooks of the New York Times and syndicated columnist Mark Shields. Mark what was the turning point? Only five days ago the White House was defiant after the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Bush. White House spokesman Tony Snow made it clear the President intended for a trial in the Senate to go forward. What happened between now and then?

MARK SHIELDS: Jim in 1974, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater - conservative stalwart led a Republican delegation that told Richard Nixon he no longer enjoyed the support of his own party and needed to resign for the good of the country. Two decades later, Arizona Senator John McCain joined Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Orin Hatch …

JIM LEHRER: Orin Hatch of Utah.

MARK SHIELDS: And a respected conservative and senior member of the Senate Judiciary committee. My sources tell me they candidly and straightforwardly told the president he was hemorrhaging Republican support in the Senate and his duty to the country was to resign.

JIM LEHRER: David does that square with your reporting?

DAVID BROOKS: It does Jim. I would add that the President was hearing from friends, family as well as Capitol Hill that he had to spare the country from further trauma. He would only lose in the Senate anyway. Democrats are unified and the Republicans are fractured. Also, September 11th allows the President to remind everyone that he made tough decisions to protect the nation in a time of war. I’m hearing the President will emphasize he’s sacrificing himself for national unity just as he’s asked soldiers to sacrifice their lives for freedom.

JIM LEHRER: And now President Bush.
********************************************************************************
Camera focuses on President Bush sitting nervously behind his desk in the oval office.

Good evening. Tonight I speak to you on the 6th anniversary that evil attacked us. It was a wake up call. America was put on notice that our enemies hate us, hate our way of life and want to kill us. For six years I’ve spent every waking moment working to protect our way of life from people who despise freedom and hope.

My administration removed a brutal dictator from Iraq and toppled a regime in Afghanistan that supported the very terrorists who attacked us. We’ve strengthened homeland security and paved the way for a new mid-east based upon freedom and self-determination. Oppression is retreating and the terrorists haven’t attacked us since that horrible day. It is a record I’m proud of and I will never apologize for defending freedom.

In the early days after 9/11 we had unity and purpose. Over time that resolve of patriotism eroded in a wave of partisanship and political vendettas. Let me be clear: I do not agree with the recent activity of congress. It is a distraction from the global war on terror that emboldens our enemies. I believe congress has overreached and their unwarranted encroachment upon executive power is dangerous. They’ve undermined national security. The ability of future presidents to protect our country is compromised by the virulent partisanship in Washington today.

I believe God has entrusted our country with the sacred duty of spreading freedom and democracy. It is a divine trust that requires sacrifice and continued vigilance. We are at war and the cause of freedom is larger than any one person.

Many have given their lives to protect our freedom. Freedom comes with a price. Both the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan are learning this. Our solders and their families understand this. I too understand.

I’ve labored for six years to defend freedom. I would’ve preferred to continue the fight until my term’s final day. I’ve seen plenty of tough days and don’t believe in quitting. But I do believe sacrifice is sometimes required for the greater good. I believe that is so today.

That’s why I’m resigning the Presidency at noon tomorrow. Vice President Cheney will assume the duties of this office upon my resignation.

I do this to restore the unity and resolve needed for victory. Given the stakes I have no problem relinquishing the power and prestige of the Presidency. It is an office I was honored to serve and I gave everything I had for my country. It is in the spirit of unity that I resign the Presidency so we can heal as a country and move forward.

I ask that all Americans come together now and support Vice President Cheney in the days ahead. The cause of freedom and our way of life is at stake. He will be in Laura’s prayers and mine. I hope he will be in yours.

To those who steadfastly supported and prayed for me, I thank you. Your support gave me strength. To those who opposed my policies I’ll simply say this: our opinions may have differed but I know we all care passionately about our country. As your President I did my best to serve everyone and I feel bonded to all Americans.

May God continue to bless the United States of America.

************************************************************************************

JIM LEHRER: President George W. Bush formally resigned his office in a short speech. He criticized congress for partisanship and overreaching and he appealed for unity. David what did you think of his speech?

DAVID BROOKS: I thought he ended on a high note and was true to himself. He hit on the themes of unity, resolve and fighting for freedom. Those were his themes during the early days after 9/11. I liked the appeal to unity for both supporters and his critics. I think it’s fair that he accused congress of partisanship. In many ways his impeachment was an act of political vengeance. Partly to avenge Bill Clinton’s impeachment and partly I think to punish Republicans for their previous political dominance.

JIM LEHRER: Mark is that how you see it?

MARK SHIELDS: I don’t Jim. I thought the speech was delusional at best and disingenuous at worst. Bush campaigned in 2000 and again in 2004 as the straight talking, plainspoken person who knows what he means and means what he says. But delusion and disingenuousness have been the hallmarks of this administration and it was in this speech. He laments the politics of vendettas but it was his administration that challenged the patriotism of those who dissented. It was his administration that exposed a covert CIA operative. The Scooter Libby trial revealed there was much more than an innocent leak from Richard Armitage.

And justification for the Iraq war wasn’t about spreading democracy. It was about protecting Americans from weapons of mass destruction. The House of Representatives made a compelling case that President Bush knowingly and willfully misled the country to war – apparently believing it would be a cakewalk. 4,500 Americans are now dead and our international prestige is at an all time low.

They also made a compelling case the President knowingly and willfully violated the law with the domestic surveillance program. Forty Republicans joined Democrats in supporting all counts of impeachment Jim. At least 18 Republican Senators are on record as supporting conviction before a single day of hearings in the Senate. This wasn’t partisanship and it wasn’t vengeance. This was supported by the mainstream.

JIM LEHRER: David?

DAVID BROOKS: Well … (smiles sheepishly), I think Republicans caved after a torrent of harsh publicity. And it’s troubling. It’s troubling for the constitutional process. I don’t see how one can prove intent on Iraq. Yes one may critique the administration’s judgment about Iraq. They had bad intelligence and after 9/11 didn’t want WMD’s winding up in the wrong hands. A lot of us shared that view (laughs and shrugs). I’ve lost count how many times the Senate intelligence committee reported the administration did not mislead about Iraq.

As for the domestic surveillance program – I’m on record for criticizing the administration for not working with congress on a new legal framework to replace FISA. As the majority party in the House, Democrats had the leverage to compel the administration to negotiate over a new legal framework that protected security and civil liberties. They opted to impeach the president instead of proposing solutions. This was not their finest hour.

JIM LEHRER: What about the appeal to unity Mark? Is that possible after everything that’s happened?

MARK SHIELDS: Jim first I want to address David’s points. The hearings in the House uncovered evidence we didn’t have all these years. I might question the wisdom of impeaching President Bush and leaving the White House in Dick Cheney’s hands. But testimony from intelligence analysts, the redacted memos from the Pentagon … I think the intent was quite clear. As for domestic surveillance – the hearings uncovered a troubling pattern of utilizing surveillance for purposes other than national security. We didn’t know that one year ago or two years ago. Again, I reiterate that impeaching the President and forcing his resignation may not be the wisest or best course. But it was certainly justified on evidentiary grounds.

As for unity – Vice President Cheney was Chief of Staff to a unifying figure in Gerald Ford who just passed away. I knew Gerald Ford. He wasn’t a friend but I knew him and admired him. Dick Cheney is no Gerald Ford. He’s not a unifying figure. His approval ratings are even lower than the President’s. Most believe Cheney was the real power behind the throne these past six years Jim. But they couldn’t get Cheney. They couldn’t get Rumsfeld who finally resigned to buy the President time. Now Cheney’s the President.

JIM LEHRER: You never agreed with impeaching President Bush.

MARK SHIELDS: Well Jim I question the wisdom of it. Not the justification but the wisdom. Bush was going to be gone on January 20, 2009. What happens now? Cheney has expressed no interest in standing for election. So for the next two years we have a commander and chief who isn’t trusted and has no incentive to earn trust or build consensus. Six years ago Cheney was regarded as the grown up with gravitas. He added maturity and judgment. Well it’s his misjudgments that resulted in the resignation of his President.

DAVID BROOKS: Cheney is an experienced operator. Behind the scenes he’s signaled to congressional leaders his willingness to be conciliatory. He knows congress is a lot more assertive right now and that he has to tread more carefully. The real question is whether Democrats will meet him half way or do they want to shed more political blood going into 2008.

JIM LEHRER: You think the Democrats are out for blood?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, the far left of the party, the liberal bloggers - they smell blood. The fringe of the Democratic Party was at first critical of Speaker Pelosi for standing in the way of Bush’s impeachment. When impeachment went forward they were critical of John Conyers for not going after Cheney too. They risk appearing as if they want to overturn the national elections of 2000 and 2004. The public is sick of partisanship. They want fresh ideas on how to win in Iraq, win the war on terror, improve education, solve immigration and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. So far all they’re getting from Democrats are investigations, hearings and impeachment.

JIM LEHRER: Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: Jim the Republicans investigated Bill Clinton to exhaustion over a land deal and an illicit affair. The public was against Bill Clinton’s impeachment but Republicans did it anyway. Democrats if anything were more restrained than the public wants right now about war and peace. Polls overwhelmingly show they want both Bush and Cheney held accountable. Again, I question the wisdom of impeaching Bush if you can’t remove Cheney as well. But this is far beyond a small fringe of the Democratic Party. I suppose in that sense we do have unity.

JIM LEHRER: David any sense about whom congress would consider approving as the next Vice President. For our viewers benefit - the Constitution requires that a majority of both houses of congress approve the next Vice President.

DAVID BROOKS: Two names I’m hearing are Jack Danforth and Tom Kean.

JIM LEHRER: Jack Danforth the former Senator from Missouri and former New Jersey Governor Kean …

DAVID BROOKS: Was the Chairman of the 9/11 Commission and very critical of the Bush Administration. This is an interesting dance. Democrats have leverage as the majority in the House and don’t want to give a prospective Republican nominee in 2008 a leg up. And plenty of ambitious Republicans interested in the White House don’t want someone like John McCain selected as Vice President. Or Condi Rice for that matter. Danforth and Kean may be seen as safe but unifying choices.

JIM LEHRER: Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: I think Kean would be an inspired choice. Too good a choice might make Cheney feel more vulnerable. The public I’m sure would much prefer a Tom Kean in the White House over Dick Cheney. It’s hard to imagine Kean having much influence in a Cheney Administration. I’m sure Cheney would pick Rumsfeld if he could get away with it. As for John McCain – I’m not sure he would want it. At this point being associated with this administration is not viable for one’s political health or presidential ambitions.

JIM LEHRER: What about policy David? Are we likely to see many changes?

DAVID BROOKS: Well … Cheney’s advisors have spoken on deep background that they plan to propose a round of new tax cuts as a way to rally and unify their conservative base heading into an election year. They know the Republican caucus will be fractious with a wide open primary season and tax cuts might help provide some cohesion. On foreign policy Cheney is just as determined as Bush to stay the course. Even more so (laughs).

JIM LEHRER: Mark what about the possibility of a pardon as Ford pardoned Nixon?

MARK SHIELDS: I think that’s inevitable Jim. Cheney will use a pretext of moving forward and avoiding further distractions with a pardon. Bush and his lawyers are certainly aware of any evidence than might implicate the Vice President. It’s common knowledge a rift now exists between Cheney and the Bush families. Cheney can mend fences, protect himself from a potentially dangerous witness and unlike Ford he’s not running for anything and won’t care about any backlash.
**********************************************************************************
Jim Lehrer invites historians Doris Kearns Goodwin, Haynes Johnson, Michael Beschloss, Richard Norton Smith into the conversation. And they pontificate further about the speech, Bush’s legacy and future repercussions. Bottom line: Dick Cheney could wind up in the White House. Something to think about.

A Podcast Interview With Congressional Candidate Chris Owens

On July 10th I posted a podcast interview with congressional candidate Chris Owens of Brooklyn, New York’s 11th congressional district. As I am new to podcasting, the host site I used at the time wasn’t very good. I’ve finally come up with a better one. Since the Democratic primary for the 11th district is Tuesday, September 12, I thought it made sense to repost the podcast.

This district is a human mosaic of 654,000: 60 percent blacks, 20 percent whites, 12 percent Hispanics, 4 percent Asians and 4 percent other ethnicities. The minorities, mostly Caribbean Americans and other immigrants, comprise 80 percent of the district.

The 11th is historically significant because it was created pursuant to the Voting Rights Act. In 1968, the district elected the first black woman to Congress – Shirley Chisholm. Since then the predominantly black population has been represented in Washington by one of their own. The incumbent, Major R. Owens is retiring after serving in Congress since 1984. An African-American, Representative Owens is highly regarded among progressives for his commitment to strengthening public education. He also happens to be the father of candidate Chris Owens.

Ironically, it is the candidacy of a white politician named David Yassky who has generated controversy in the 11th. Yassky is the only white politician among four candidates vying for the Democratic Party’s nomination. There is virtually no doubt the seat will remain in Democratic hands this November.

Yassky is a city councilman who originally planned to run for Brooklyn District Attorney. He abandoned that race, changed his residence to the 11th district and quickly raised $1 million for the campaign. Some regard him as an accomplished public servant with much to offer. Others believe that Yassky calculated he couldn’t win the race for District Attorney and preferred to campaign for an office in which the black vote would be split three-ways. Yassky contends he entered the fray after “soul searching.”

City Councilwoman Yvette D. Clarke currently represents part of the 11th District and challenged Representative Owens in a three way primary two years ago and came in second.

State Senator Carl Andrews is favored by the Democratic Party’s New York establishment and was endorsed by gubernatorial candidate Eliot Spitzer and former Mayor David Dinkins. Even as Andrews enjoys their support he is also attempting to distance himself from the Democratic organization, where he was close to Clarence Norman Jr., the former Brooklyn Democratic leader who was convicted on corruption charges in 2005.

Chris Owens was an elected Community School Board member and president. His government experience includes working with former City Council President Andrew Stein as well as over a decade in the private sector in the health care industry. Owens promotes himself as “The Real Progressive” in the race.

He supports our immediate withdrawal from Iraq, President Bush’s impeachment, single payer health care and opposes the Atlantic Yards development project to provide a Brooklyn home for the New Jersey Nets basketball team.

Click here to listen to the interview. Please be advised this is not a “soundbite” interview as we covered a lot of ground.

Taking Genocide Personally

I visited Poland shortly after turning 21. It was March 1990 and I was fortunate to be studying in England my junior year of college. After a rigorous semester of study I jumped at the chance to see Eastern Europe during my next semester break. The memories remain fresh sixteen years later. The tour group put Auschwitz and Birkenau on our itinerary.

For me Birkenau had the greater impact. It was usually hot as we walked the grounds. Days earlier when we first arrived in Poland it was bitter cold. There were crematoriums only partially destroyed by the Nazis in their attempt to conceal evidence prior to the war's conclusion. A lake where the ashes of cremated Jews was dumped remained.

I was the only Jew among our small group and sensed I was impacted differently than the others. Physically I was nauseous and struggled to walk. The others were horrified as decent human beings but it wasn’t quite the same for them – at least that’s how it seemed to me. I strolled by myself to an area overlooking a crematorium pit and reflected.

Among the people in our group was a kind-hearted graduate student from Cambodia and survivor of the Khmer Rhouge. He approached and stood next to me. We talked and I explained my family’s Polish history. A grandfather who escaped the Nazis and came to America at the age of 16 with his brothers while their parents remained behind. My great grandfather was especially heroic in helping Jewish children escape death in Poland before the Nazis finally caught up to him. Prior to Hitler he had been a prestigious judge but after September 1939 he was just another Jew marked for death.

Empathetically he observed, “For you this is personal.” We chatted and I learned about his personal history. He was a few years older than me and had a British accent. The Khmer Rhouge murdered his parents in the 1970s and he had no family in Cambodia. Surveying the scene and stillness of Birkenau he said “all genocide is personal to me.”

If I live to be 100 years old I will never forget those words and the conviction they were spoken with. Sadly I never got his name and upon returning to England I never saw him again. Yet those few minutes produced the most poignant conversation I ever had. All genocide is personal to me.

To our collective international shame the world does not take genocide personally. The conflict in Darfur is over three years old and the community of nations is disinterested, pre-occupied or incompetent. The previous three years illustrates humanity's callous ineptitude.

Early in 2003 a rebel group attacked government sites, saying the region was being neglected by Khartoum. These insurgents claimed their aggression was justified because the government oppressed black Africans in favor of Arabs. The region is arid and impoverished and people were competing for limited resources.

Darfur means land of the Fur and had previously experienced tension over land and grazing rights between the mostly nomadic Arabs, and farmers from the Fur, Massaleet and Zagawa communities. The two primary rebel groups are the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (Jem). Recent peace talks were setback because of infighting in both groups.

The Sudanese government acknowledges mobilizing militias after rebel attacks but denies any relationship with the Janjaweed, accused of “cleansing” black Africans covering large tracts of territory.

Darfur refugees claim the Janjaweed attack villages on horses and camels, exterminating men, raping women and stealing anything they can. Many women report being abducted by the Janjaweed and held as sex slaves. Another vile atrocity are babies conceived from rape. Rape victims are typically told by perpetrators they want to make a "lighter baby."

Human rights groups, the American Congress and former Secretary of State Colin Powell all acknowledged that genocide was taking place. To its everlasting shame, the United Nations reported in February 2005 there was no intent to commit genocide. Just imagine an international body reporting in 1942 that Nazi Germany had no intent to commit genocide against the Jews of Europe.

Sudan's government denies any accountability for the Janjaweed and President Omar al-Bashir has called them "thieves and gangsters." International pressure and the threat of sanctions did finally compel the Sudanese government to promise disarming the Janjaweed. But they have not been disarmed.

Millions have fled the villages destroyed by the Janjaweed, towards camps near Darfur's main towns. There is not enough food, water or medicine to accommodate them.

International relief agencies have been heroic in Darfur but they are unable to penetrate vast areas because of the fighting. SLA leader Minni Minawi, signed a peace deal in May 2005. According to Amnesty International his fighters have abused people in areas opposed to the peace deal. A smaller SLA faction and JEM did not sign onto the agreement.

Approximately 7,000 African Union troops are deployed in Darfur with a limited mandate. There are too few soldiers to police the area and the operation can’t be funded much longer. And Sudan continues to resist western diplomatic pressure for the UN to take control of the peacekeeping mission. Recently the UN deliberated over a plan for17,000 troops and 3,000 UN policemen but there is deadlock and nothing has happened. And the killing continues.

What can we do? What can we do individually and as a country? The situation seems beyond hope and we’re besieged by so many other challenges domestically. We’re also governed by warmongers who prefer taking lives for oil instead of saving lives as members of the human race. Individually, few and this certainly includes myself, are willing to risk our lives. I can’t pretend I’m ready to join a relief agency and globe trot to Darfur.

But that rationalization is too convenient, too easy and too dismissive. Ultimately, our collective failure as human beings stems from not taking genocide personally as my companion from Cambodia told me sixteen years ago in Birkenau.

Every one of us can do something. For the netroots that means promoting awareness and raising money on behalf of organizations trying to save lives. Perhaps our promotion will also facilitate recruitment on behalf of organizations that are short staffed. Hopefully the netroots community can help pressure politicians into taking genocide personally as well.

I’ve been blogging since November ’05 and have no excuse for not writing sooner about genocide in Darfur. If all of us in the netroots community make it our business to periodically remind our readers about the crisis, promote agencies that need money or volunteers and encourage activism to influence politicians we can have an impact bigger than ourselves.

One organization is Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF). MSF has over 162 international volunteers and 2,000 Sudanese staff saving lives in 24 locations in Darfur. In Chad, MSF assists refugees from Darfur in 11 locations with a total of 33 international staff. Click here to learn more about their work and make a donation.

Another heroic entity is SOS Children’s Villages. SOS currently operates two SOS Family Centers providing hundreds of severely affected children and single mothers with therapy and counseling, which is carried out by the organization's specialized staff. Click here to learn about their needs and make a contribution.

Bloggers can make a difference by ocasionally promoting just two different organizations that provide relief and save lives. Hence, can help save lives ourselves. If anyone wishes to promote other organizations and provide links where readers can make contributions please do so in your comments.

It’s time for all of us to take genocide personally.
************************************************************************************
ADDENDUM: Click here to review the growing number of comments in my cross posting at European Tribune. As always the ET community is thoughtful and provocative.

Reminiscing About the Future: Chuck Hagel vs. Hillary Clinton

Richard Nixon manipulated Americans into believing he had an honorable exit strategy from Vietnam. Ronald Reagan successfully convinced voters he championed a Norman Rockwell society that valued hard work and neighborhood generosity. In 1988, oilman George Herbert Walker Bush won in part as the “environmentalist” candidate. Twelve years later his son stole the presidency after campaigning as a “plain spoken” truth telling man of the people with a “humble” foreign policy.

Perception usually triumphs reality in politics. That is apparent in Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel’s nascent campaign for president. Hagel is shrewdly positioning himself as the sole antiwar candidate in the Republican Party. Ironically, Republicans just might nominate a candidate running on an anti-war platform in a brazen display of chutzpah and hypocrisy. PsiFigther37 posted an especially trenchant analysis about Hagel in My Left Wing on August 20th. It’s worth reading as he/she catalogued Hagel’s misrepresentations of his own record on various issues. PsiFighter37 concluded that,

“The blogosphere may appreciate what they view as Hagel's truthfulness in addressing our foreign policy. But he is nothing more than your ultraconservative Republican who is scheming for a political run in the future. The man does not deserve praise. He deserves the greatest of scorn for being a politician without principles, someone whose political ambitions are written all over his actions.”

I agree with PsiFighter37 but suspect reality will be dwarfed again. Typically, the GOP’s nomenklatura rallies behind a candidate they consider both a winning horse and reliable steward of their interests. Usually, a GOP nominee is deemed acceptable with varying degrees of enthusiasm by their rank and file after the party establishment gives its’ blessing.

Several months ago the favored candidate of Republican apparatchiks was Virginia Senator George Allen. Allen’s combination of affability and vapid intellect is just the sort of politician Republican elites know can win and be controlled. But Allen’s recent stumbles have wounded his national stature and he may not even prevail against James Webb this November.

Hence, there is a void in the Republican Party with no obvious heir to George W. Bush. GOP elites are flocking to John McCain, who in spite of his recent calculated outburst against the Bush Administration has fully embraced neo-con policies. However, GOP core constituents do not respect McCain and his continued support for the Iraq War will undermine his national stature. In 2008 the strongest Republican candidate will likely be the one with the most rhetorical daylight from the Bush Administration’s national security policies. That is not John McCain who has actively courted Bush’s supporters.

Hagel has carved a niche as a traditional Republican realist on foreign policy. Other candidates may attempt to break with the Administration in 2008 but will appear opportunistic in doing so. Chris Shays for example is vulnerable to ridicule because he conveniently flip-flopped on Iraq three months prior to facing the wrath of disgruntled Connecticut voters. It’s an obvious deathbed conversion with no credibility.

Hagel is different because he rhetorically challenged the rationale of Bush’s policies in Iraq even more than some Democrats in recent years. Furthermore, Hagel has rhetorically challenged Bush for portraying dissent as unpatriotic. His record as PSI37 points out suggests support for neo-con imperialism as well as corporatist greed. There is also Hagel’s unsavory relationship with Diebold. Nonetheless, it’s perception that counts and the press appears eager to anoint the former Vietnam veteran as a sensible and tough centrist who is up to the job.

It’s not hard to see Hagel prevailing in the 2008 Iowa caucuses. Even conservative Iowans are far less enthusiastic about Bush’s foreign policy. Disenchantment with the Iraq war will only increase nationwide the next two years and probably more so in Iowa. Meanwhile, Hagel can shamelessly pander to the state’s religious fundamentalists, preach the virtues of lower taxes and smaller government and appeal to Iowans as a regional son from Nebraska. For good measure he might also be able to say, “I’m the only candidate who can appeal to Democrats and independents in a general election.”

Republicans rejected McCain’s in 2000 when he attempted to promote his general election appeal. However, Republicans may feel even more endangered in 2008 then they do today. If Democrats retake congress this November then Hagel can easily appeal to their instinct for survival. Should Democrats fall short this November the GOP will remain accountable for all that is wrong in 2008. That also works to Hagel’s advantage because on foreign policy he’s positioned himself as the only agent of change in the Republican Party.

McCain prevailed in the 2000 New Hampshire primary because of cross over independent voters. Those independent voters in New Hampshire may rally to Hagel’s banner after a victory in the Iowa caucuses and the momentum that goes with it. Hagel would then be on a roll and national polls would further reinforce his stature as the GOP’s strongest candidate in November.

After New Hampshire in 2000, McCain was overwhelmed by a vicious counterattack from the Republican establishment. Does McCain sanction the sort of counter attack against Hagel that Bush waged against him in South Carolina? Hagel stood up for McCain then. Such a counterattack on McCain’s behalf would only backfire. There’s no way he can. And rhetorically Hagel will appear more in step with the majority of voters that decide general elections than McCain because of Iraq – even though they’re records are indistinguishable.

Perhaps the other candidates such as Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee or Sam Brownback might get traction but they haven’t established their own bona fides on national security separate from Bush. Hagel is the one Republican with rhetorical daylight from the Bush years. Yet Hagel can also combine his rhetorical daylight from Bush with appeals to cultural conservatives far easier than McCain. Brownback has the cultural appeal but comes up short on Iraqi policy and Romney is a flip flopper on abortion. I can’t see Republicans nominating Mike Huckabee and for damn sure they’re not nominating Rudolph Guilani no matter what the polls say.

So two years from now the headlines may read, “Republican nominee Chuck Hagel declared he’s the one to get America out of Iraq.” There will be the necessary platitudes about prudence, coordination with allies, and a methodical withdrawal that preserves our strategic interests. But the message that will stick is only the sensible conservative and military veteran Chuck Hagel can get us out of Iraq. That is powerful.

Is the Democrats best answer to this challenge Hillary Clinton? Personally, I’m partial to Senator Russ Feingold and would also be enthusiastic about Al Gore’s candidacy. Perhaps John Edwards could prevail in Iowa and stop her. Wesley Clark also appeals to me. But what if the Hillary juggernaut can’t be stopped and her institutional advantages sweep her to the Democratic Party’s nomination?

If Democrats fail to coalesce around an alternative early on Hillary prevails whether we like it or not. Furthermore, there may also be consequences to Hillary winning too easily. If the anti-war Left does not mount an effective challenge, Hillary will straddle the political fifty yard line on Iraq and foreign policy generally. She’ll take the usual partisan pot shots (perhaps Rumsfeld will still be there!) but not renounce her initial support for the war or propose any timelines to withdraw.

Hillary is boxed in. Unlike Edwards, Hillary can’t apologize for her vote to authorize the war without appearing insincere. As a woman she’s confronted with the stereotype about toughness and doesn’t want to appear soft. And she’s rhetorically advocated for more troops in Iraq. Her partisan criticisms of how Bush has prosecuted the war will fail against a nominee such as Hagel telling voters he will get us out. How can Hillary criticize Republicans for diverting resources from the war on terror to Iraq when she’s advocated for more troop deployments?

An office colleague I respect is a good bellwether for how independent voters think. He describes himself as a political “agnostic” when it comes to Democrats and Republicans. A veteran who served in Vietnam he despises Bush’s record on national security and voted for Kerry in 2004. When I asked him about a hypothetical match up between Hillary and Hagel he immediately said he would vote for Hagel because, “he can get us out of Iraq. Only Nixon could go to China. Maybe it takes a Republican to get us out of Iraq.” His visceral reaction disturbed me. It’s the Republicans who got us into Iraq and Hagel is just as guilty as the rest of them! Perception triumphs reality again.

As PsiFighter37’s August 20th diary illustrates, Hagel has many contradictions and should be held accountable for them. Hillary is the wrong messenger for Democrats to defeat him. She’s too mealy mouthed, too corporatist and too insincere. True strength stems from authenticity combined with a record of clarity and sound judgment. Hillary Clinton embodies none of those virtues. Preposterous as it sounds, a Hagel vs. Clinton race means Republicans prevail on a platform to exit from Iraq. We can’t let them get away with it.
*********************************************************************************
ADDENDUM: I cross posted the above topic on Daily Kos and the comments, critical and favorable make for interesting reading. Click here to review them.

Power, Politics, Principle and Overpriced Latex Gloves

It was autumn 1992 and I was out of college for a year. Like many undergraduates from liberal art schools I was well educated but didn’t possess any skills for the “real world.” So I telemarketed for a hideous company that sold overpriced latex gloves to nursing homes while living in the East Village.

The market value for these gloves was approximately $30 per case (10 boxes per case) and we sold them for $400. I earned either $8 an hour or 5% per sale if commissions exceeded my base salary. The company provided us with names of nursing homes nationwide on index cards and we read from a script.

The script was useless and typically anyone we called wasn’t seduced by our offer of a free coffee maker with a purchase. Once price was mentioned the conversation usually ended abruptly. Sales were not being made and management wasn’t interested in our excuses about selling a grotesquely overpriced product.

With no jobs on the horizon and George Herbert Walker Bush waging class warfare against working people from the White House, I was desperate. So, I improvised and deviated from the script.

I used fear mongering and told the purchasing managers diseases where everywhere! AIDS! You had to be careful. Our gloves cost more because they met OSHA requirements and prevented the transmission of blood borne pathogens! Most gloves didn’t and nursing homes owed it to their staffs to use our gloves instead.

All lies that I just pulled out of my ass to make sales. It worked. For nearly three weeks I was making sales and others adopted my methods. The company even changed our script and utilized my words. I was ashamed but needed money and rationalized I had no choice.

However, after three weeks the company wasn’t providing new leads anymore. Instead they redistributed the same index cards listing nursing homes we called previously. The second time around our solicitation calls provoked hostility. Several threatened lawsuits. One woman in Colorado even threatened to send her brother Luke to New York and beat me up. She noted that our gloves were identical to any she purchased previously from her regular suppliers at $30 and the free coffee maker didn’t work either.

I stopped making sales. Others stopped making sales. The company blamed me and I moved on to another job. Such was my life back then. It wasn’t until the Clinton years that I had steadier pay and more respectable work. Fourteen years later the memories remain fresh.

It took those nursing homes three weeks to realize they were paying through the nose for lies and scare tactics. Americans are finally waking up from their coma after five plus years of Republican propaganda and fear mongering. I hope the public is not simply fed up with the Bush era but having an epiphany about the legacy of modern conservatism. Sadly, a generation of conservative hateful manipulation and the American public’s gullibility produced brutal repercussions.

Stateless and decentralized thugs threaten civilization in the name of God. Global warming is eroding the world’s water supply while America’s governing party denies that human behavior is the cause. Christian radicals in America contest the teaching of evolution and assault the human rights of women and gays. We’re currently engaged in two wars going badly and right wing ideologues are hungry for more. Obviously, a coalition of corporate militarism and Christian radicals is ill equipped to govern with tolerance and good sense.

The forces of religious extremism in the Islamic world are ascending. Meanwhile, the neo-cons in Washington perceive America as a modern Rome and Islamic radicals as 21st century Visigoths poised to undermine our birthright of hegemony. Corporations such as Blackwater USA continue to make money hand over fist while blood spills and the religious right cheers for the “end of days.” Approximately one year ago we failed to look after our own during a hurricane while nation building in Iraq.

America’s unique blending of corporate militarism and Christian radicalism has resulted in a dysfunctional culture of plutocracy and Puritanism. As the mega rich avoid paying taxes and playing by the same rules as everyone else, the middle class and working poor can’t earn a living wage or afford healthcare. A corporation such as Kaiser Permanente is not accountable for their misdeeds but there are women who can’t buy morning after pills from their local pharmacies.

This duality of maximum autonomy for corporations and plutocrats while eroding civil liberties and prosperity for individuals is producing an era of entropy. Entropy at home and abroad is the legacy of modern conservatism and our collective susceptibility to their assault on truth. Meanwhile, the so-called libertarians and “moderates” dismiss their culpability for empowering a reign of indecency and decay.

What is the antidote to this condition? We need more than a “new direction” or change from Republican rule to Democrats. America needs a progressive reformation that detoxifies our culture from corporate militarism and Christian theocrats. The time has come for a modern enlightenment.

The world is crying for America to lead as the guiding light of enlightenment instead of pouring more kerosene on the world’s fire of disorder and facilitating greed based globalization. In this instance leading means becoming better global citizens and nurturing a culture of community values at home. The time has come to jettison the failed ethos of hyper individualism in our country as well as the hubris of imperialism abroad.

This may become possible because American conservatism is discredited and sucking wind. All that remains is defining the terms of their surrender and what comes next. That is what the next two election cycles are truly about. The struggle for what replaces conservatism is underway. Republicans may survive if they adapt in coming years. Democrats may prevail in the short term. Regardless, the center of political gravity is poised to change.

If we truly want a progressive reformation based upon truth, merit and social justice to prevail then we must never surrender integrity for expediency. As a progressive pragmatist I don’t want to lose this opportunity to establish a governing philosophy based upon social justice and realism. It is incumbent upon progressive activists and the netroots community to remain vigilant and committed to our principles after victory. Strange as it seems, in the coming years we may become the establishment.

Once upon a time conservatives championed some worthy principles such as fiscal responsibility, values and individual responsibility. They squandered them in favor of expediency and patronage. They forgot where they came from and lied as if truth were an endless supply of counterfeit money. I hope we never forget where we come from and abandon our principles at the first taste of power. To do so would be catastrophic. My personal reality check is remembering the gloves.
***********************************************************************************
ADDENDUM: My thanks to "Suan G." for once again rescuing my cross posting on Daily Kos. I estimate she's done this for me at least six times this year and it's highly appreciated.

At Long Last Have You No Decency David Brooks?

David Brooks is a lightweight whom I typically ignore. Other progressive bloggers critique his sophomoric punditry and infantile analysis with enthusiasm. Until Friday, I considered attacking Brooks akin to abusing the Pillsbury Dough Boy.

Standing on an overcrowded A-Train with malfunctioning air conditioning, I read Brooks’ column "Bye-Bye Bootstraps" while commuting to Manhattan from Brooklyn. Brooks had the temerity to suggest that a “Wal-Mart leisure class” was emerging in America. One wonders how my fellow passengers suffering from the heat as we commuted to our jobs would’ve responded to this soft minded propagandist of America’s plutocracy.

The New York Times recently did a piece about how some people out of work were taking advantage of their free time. Brooks cleverly exploited quotes from these individuals to suggest that today’s work ethic belongs to the hard working wealthy. Even worse, Brooks’ perverts the word “dignity” to claim it as the property of elites:

“Once upon a time, middle-class men would have defined their dignity by their ability to work hard, provide for their family and live as self-reliant members of society. But these fellows, to judge by their quotations, define their dignity the same way the subjects of Thorstein Veblen’s ‘The Theory of the Leisure Class’ defined theirs.

They define their dignity by the loftiness of their thinking. They define their dignity not by their achievement, but by their personal enlightenment, their autonomy, by their distance from anything dishonorably menial or compulsory.”

You see what he’s doing? Brooks is hijacking the egalitarian concept of dignity. Dignity is a virtue that no single economic class, race, religion or nationality can lay claim to as his or her own. Dignity belongs to all of us. As Robert Fuller has written so persuasively, dignity is a universal right. Brooks has twisted dignity into a virtue belonging to the wealthy.

Obviously he hopes to justify the status of today’s mega wealthy by implying elites possess superior dignity. The wealthy are hard working souls driven to achievement while those lazy people working at Wal-Mart just don’t have the same dignity of ambition. This man is a jerk.

I immediately thought of my good friend known by some in the blogosphere as ”Breaking Ranks.” She is a driven person down on her luck professionally without steady work. I could think of no one more qualified to refute the garbage inside David Brooks’ column.

She did not disappoint. My friend is a gentle soul but Brooks’ column provoked her into posting a diary on Daily Kos entitled, "F*** YOU DAVID BROOKS AND NYT." Her title made me laugh. In nearly twenty years of friendship from our days as undergraduate classmates, I don’t recall her ever dropping an F-bomb. For her to even have “F” followed by three asterisks was a big deal. Brooks may be a mediocre scribe but he managed to provoke the most gentle and civil of souls.

Her post was a tour de force and a must read. It should’ve made the recommended list at Daily Kos but didn’t. A talented writer she got to the point quickly:

“I've been limping around in agony for three weeks. An ingrown toenail got seriously infected, and the only thing Neosporin seems to be doing is preventing it from getting worse. Why haven't I gone to a podiatrist? I don't have any health insurance. Thus this NYT article by David Brooks makes me want to scream with rage.

I haven't worked regularly since 2003. Nothing is going into Social Security for me, and it's likely that I will be a renter (or possibly a homeless person) until the day I die. I've never held a full-time job that made use of my education and talents, much less enabled me to pursue my dreams. I haven't been to the movies in over three years, and I don't conspicuously consume at Wal-Mart or anywhere else. I handwash all my clothes, and I'm down to one pair of pants.

Yep, I'm sooo sure this is what Veblen had in mind when he described the Leisure Class. My take on the dignity of my condition diverges considerably from Brooks' mean-spirited screed as well.

So forgive the INAPPROPRIATE CAPS - I'm officially PISSED THE HELL OFF!”

Alas, David Brooks enjoys a veneer of respectability. The New York Times is discredited from the Judith Miller fiasco and other transgressions. However, the gray lady remains a powerful forum and Brooks is a frequent commentator on the inside the beltway talking circuit. Consequently, he has the ability to shape the terms of debate and discussion that influences political discourse. Those who control the terms of debate rule the day in politics.

Since Barry Goldwater’s landslide defeat in 1964, conservatives have managed to define the social safety net as evil and taxes on wealth as immoral. With ruthless skill conservatives have promoted an ethos in America that rewards wealth over work and hyper individualism over community values.

These people realize their reign of indecency may be coming to an end if the terms of debate are not altered before November. Enter David Brooks at stage right with his mean spirited diatribe sullying the dignity and virtues of hard working people. Our corporatist policies that reward wealth over work can be justified because in Brooks’ view the wealthy are the only people who are truly working.

During his weekly appearance with Mark Shields on the PBS News Hour, Brooks even criticized the attempt to raise the minimum wage because it would only help “teenagers.” Mark Shields promptly corrected him and noted that minimum wage earners are the primary earners in forty percent of households.

Sadly, abstract columns by David Brooks and others that justify class warfare from the top are not effectively refuted. Media Matters is terrific at exposing disinformation and falsehoods but this sort of diatribe often survives and eventually becomes an accepted part of the lexicon. It sounds absurd yet given Republican success at manipulating language it’s not hard to imagine liberals soon having to defend that regular working people have dignity too.

My friend did a beautiful job in responding to Brooks. More is needed however. I urge anyone reading this posting to write to the New York Times and demand that Brooks recant and apologize to millions of working Americans. This should be done in a respectful tone without profanity. Blogosphere etiquette will be ineffective. Instead, please utilize civil assertiveness to persuade the New York Times editorial board that David Brooks has created a firestorm with his indecency.

One aspect of the New York Times I always appreciated is the diversity of their columnists. Columnists for the Wall Street Journal are nothing but a total echo chamber for corporate fascism. At least the New York Times tries to promote a diversity of views with their columnists. Nevertheless, David Brooks’ column on Friday requires a heavy volume response from the working people of this country. I can think of no better place to start then the netroots.

To submit a letter to the New York Times click here.
*********************************************************************************
ADDENDUM: I'm thrilled to report this posting was linked on The Nation's website in their important articles and newsfeeds section from the afternoon of Sunday, August 6th until late afternoon on Monday, August 7th. Why this happened I don't know but I'm gratified by the recognition and hope it results in many letters to the New York Times editorial board.

Also, I cross posted this topic on Daily Kos and the comments both favorable and otherwise make for interesting reading. Click here to review them.