One courageous soldier, holding vigil in Bellingham, Washington (more coverage here), is discovering that most of the people he talks to don't even know what "stop loss" is, or believe that it only refers to a certain kind of stock trade. In fact the Bush administration's indefensible and immoral use of the military's stop loss policy is a despicable mistreatment of the volunteers who comprise our armed services.
The stop loss policy allows the military to retain soldiers past the time of their contract in times of national emergency. In a real national emergency that makes sense. The only national emergency we have now is one of Bush's own creation, and it is not going to be addressed - indeed it is only being exacerbated - by forcing our volunteer soldiers to remain in the line of fire past the time of their contract. The only emergency being addressed is the political emergency of Bush vainly attempting to save face while denying the reality that his "liberation" of Iraq has been a colossal failure.
Soldiers are being called back to third and even fourth tours of duty, and kept past the time stipulated on their contracts for one simple reason. There aren't enough volunteers to support this boondoggle, and no one other than Charlie Rangel has the gumption to suggest an honest draft to supply the fresh troops that would be necessary to support keeping the former level of troops in the Middle East, much less a surge. Meanwhile Ahmadinejad laughs while we rattle our sabres, because he knows our military is now stretched too thin to provide any real threat against Iran.
When news of the stop loss program first broke, I was surprised by the lack of outrage and coverage of it. Still, outside of the military, it is a little known necessity for fueling this insane war. There are signs that it is gaining traction as an issue, though, as it erodes support for the war in the very camps where support has traditionally been strongest. In fact it has generated such a spate of lawsuits and backlash in the ranks that Defense Secretary Robert Gates is ordering that plans be made to minimize its use.
The surge and the widespread objection to it has been well reported. Some have suggested that if we really want to give the military option a chance to succeed we would need a far greater surge than the President has ordered. The elephant in the room is that we CANNOT supply such a huge surge without a real draft, and that we can only support the current levels, surge or no surge, by mistreating the very soldiers we supposedly honor.
We must demand that President Bush support our troops by bringing them home in an orderly fashion - and soon.
Showing posts with label activism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label activism. Show all posts
Tuesday, 5 June 2007
Monday, 19 March 2007
Sunday, 28 August 2005
I-912: Washington State's Trojan Horse
The opportunistic anti-tax "starve the beast" gang is at it again, with yet another initiative appealing to the short-sighted "save a buck today" mentality. Already suffering from budget woes exacerbated by previous initiatives launched by proven scofflaw and liar Tim Eyman, my state of Washington now is facing an assault from a different collection of demagogues who are appealing to anti-tax sentiment to overturn the legistlature's emergency funding measure for the transportation system. Never mind that this measure funds specific improvements to the infrastructure that will save lives, and that the gas tax implemented to fund it is to be gradually introduced at a fraction of the rise in gas prices over which government has no control.
No these anti-tax minions want to "send a message" to our legislature about government waste. It really is exasperating to attempt to talk sense into people who allow an emotive response to govern their attitudes toward public policy. I've talked to people who really should know better, who are buying the "send a message" theme, and will point to examples of bureaucracy run amok, to justify this ill-considered initiative. Of course there is government waste and there are bureaucrats who protect their turf to the detriment of the public good. But there are also plenty of fine working projects and decent public servants who serve us honorably.
Here is a case where a desperate need for patching up our failing infrastructure is funded in the only reasonable way that it can be, given the constraints of previously passed anti-tax initiatives, and where the projects thus funded are concrete improvements long sought across the whole of the state. It has bipartisan support, and the support of business as well as progressive leaders. The naysayers say "hehe, they're all bums; this'll show 'em!" But sometimes bipartisan support might actually mean that the plan is sensible.
I-912 is yet another initiative which is penny-wise and pound-foolish. It's like trying to treat lung cancer by amputating one's feet. If you live in Washington State, or know someone who does, please educate your friends, neighbors, and relatives about the transportation package which this initiative would eliminate. It's high time we stop accepting these Trojan Horses!
Many of Washington's progressive bloggers have been sounding off on this, and you can read their comments by linking to the I-912 "Hot Topic" in the sidebar of this and other local blogs. Perhaps by taking the lead on this topic, and pressuring our public officials who don't want this initiative to pass but are too timid to make public statements against an anti-tax measure, someone like Governor Gregoire will finally be emboldened to take a public stance against it.
No these anti-tax minions want to "send a message" to our legislature about government waste. It really is exasperating to attempt to talk sense into people who allow an emotive response to govern their attitudes toward public policy. I've talked to people who really should know better, who are buying the "send a message" theme, and will point to examples of bureaucracy run amok, to justify this ill-considered initiative. Of course there is government waste and there are bureaucrats who protect their turf to the detriment of the public good. But there are also plenty of fine working projects and decent public servants who serve us honorably.
Here is a case where a desperate need for patching up our failing infrastructure is funded in the only reasonable way that it can be, given the constraints of previously passed anti-tax initiatives, and where the projects thus funded are concrete improvements long sought across the whole of the state. It has bipartisan support, and the support of business as well as progressive leaders. The naysayers say "hehe, they're all bums; this'll show 'em!" But sometimes bipartisan support might actually mean that the plan is sensible.
I-912 is yet another initiative which is penny-wise and pound-foolish. It's like trying to treat lung cancer by amputating one's feet. If you live in Washington State, or know someone who does, please educate your friends, neighbors, and relatives about the transportation package which this initiative would eliminate. It's high time we stop accepting these Trojan Horses!
Many of Washington's progressive bloggers have been sounding off on this, and you can read their comments by linking to the I-912 "Hot Topic" in the sidebar of this and other local blogs. Perhaps by taking the lead on this topic, and pressuring our public officials who don't want this initiative to pass but are too timid to make public statements against an anti-tax measure, someone like Governor Gregoire will finally be emboldened to take a public stance against it.
Friday, 1 July 2005
O'Connor's Resignation
There was no need to turn on the news today for me to learn of Sandra Day O'Connor's stepping down from the high court. Five separate emails encouraged me to make my voice heard in one way or another about the selection of her replacement. Blogging about it is probably not what they had in mind. I can only imagine how many emails flooded the in-boxes of those who are involved in pro-choice politics. My own came from Democracy for America (Dean's old group), John Kerry, the ACLU, a gay rights group, and MoveOn.org. Of course the subtext here is mostly about choice/abortion since O'Connor was a swing vote, but fairly consistently voted to defend Roe v. Wade principles.
When conservatives complain that it's the Democrats who apply the litmus test to high court appointments they have a point. Of course there will be plenty of litmus tests to go around on both sides of the issue depending on who's doing the judging. In the Presidential debates though, it was Bush who rhetorically denied the application of a single issue litmus test, while Kerry in spite of eloquently expressing sympathy for pro-life sentiment, suggested that his court appointees would necessarily be pro Roe v Wade.
My concerns with O'Connor have largely been on other issues close to my heart, such as her dissent on the decision disallowing the death penalty for juveniles. Personally I would like to know a prospective justice's proclivities on a whole range of issues, and it does not necessarily follow that given a choice between two, my preference would go toward the one most likely to uphold Roe v Wade. I find it rather annoying that the Democratic Party's choice would almost automatically go to the pro-choice candidate regardless. Make no mistake, though, I still would much prefer that Kerry be making this choice than Bush. The political fallout will be interesting.
One email pointed me to this piece in the Washington Post in which Harry Reid publicly encouraged Bush to name one of the following Republican Senators: DeWine of Ohio, Graham of South Carolina, Martinez of Florida, or Crapo of Idaho. It seems quite unlikely Bush would do so, especially DeWine or Martinez, who come from states where Republican majorities are slim. I'm not sure, if for instance the just elected Martinez became a justice, whether brother Jeb, as Governor of Florida would get to name the replacement Senator for a brief interim until a special election, for a longer interval until the 2006 election where the voters would elect someone for the 4 remaining years of the term, or for the full remainder of the term.
When conservatives complain that it's the Democrats who apply the litmus test to high court appointments they have a point. Of course there will be plenty of litmus tests to go around on both sides of the issue depending on who's doing the judging. In the Presidential debates though, it was Bush who rhetorically denied the application of a single issue litmus test, while Kerry in spite of eloquently expressing sympathy for pro-life sentiment, suggested that his court appointees would necessarily be pro Roe v Wade.
My concerns with O'Connor have largely been on other issues close to my heart, such as her dissent on the decision disallowing the death penalty for juveniles. Personally I would like to know a prospective justice's proclivities on a whole range of issues, and it does not necessarily follow that given a choice between two, my preference would go toward the one most likely to uphold Roe v Wade. I find it rather annoying that the Democratic Party's choice would almost automatically go to the pro-choice candidate regardless. Make no mistake, though, I still would much prefer that Kerry be making this choice than Bush. The political fallout will be interesting.
One email pointed me to this piece in the Washington Post in which Harry Reid publicly encouraged Bush to name one of the following Republican Senators: DeWine of Ohio, Graham of South Carolina, Martinez of Florida, or Crapo of Idaho. It seems quite unlikely Bush would do so, especially DeWine or Martinez, who come from states where Republican majorities are slim. I'm not sure, if for instance the just elected Martinez became a justice, whether brother Jeb, as Governor of Florida would get to name the replacement Senator for a brief interim until a special election, for a longer interval until the 2006 election where the voters would elect someone for the 4 remaining years of the term, or for the full remainder of the term.
Thursday, 3 February 2005
Thanks to Teddy, Chris, Russ, and others
In what is expected to be the final day of debate on the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to the office of Attorney General, while Republicans try to paint Democrats' objections to the nominee as politically motivated, Ted Kennedy summed up what seems obvious to this observer:
Christopher Dodd today (forgive possible inaccuracies in the quotation) said:
We shy away from having a true debate about our values. Stating noble words is a cover for committing to ignoble acts. We need to show that our committment to human dignity is a reality not a slogan. We respect international law. If we do not, who will? The prohibitions against torture serve us well. They protect our soldiers when they go to war. They claim it's politics if we vote against him, but in this case, the only reason to vote for him is politics. Do we stand for the rule of law or do we stand for torture. That is why we should reject this nomination.I cannot help but believe that many a Republican Senator who is speaking on Gonzales' behalf is privately wishing that Bush had chosen someone far less controversial, as they must be cringing inside to justify his qualifications. The lone Republican on the judiciary committee truly expressing trepidation, was not the moderate Specter, but rather Lindsey Graham from the very red state of South Carolina who had this exchange with Gonzales in committee:
"I think we've dramatically undermined the war effort by getting on a slippery slope in terms of playing cute with the law," Graham, a reserve Air Force JAG officer, says. He adds later, "And I think you weaken yourself as a nation when you try to play cute and become more like your enemy instead of like who you want to be."Political pressure was the order of the day, and Graham did vote to advance his nomination, but his words put the lie to the notion that Democratic objections to Alberto are petty partisan politics. Indeed those objections are felt by Republicans - even conservative Republicans - as well.
Gonzales senses that Graham has made a mistake and seizes on it. "We are nothing like our enemy, Senator," he protests. They behead people, like Danny Pearl and Nick Berg. Graham notes that this is a pretty low moral standard for America to aspire to. I agree that we're nothing like the enemy, he says. "But we're not like who we want to be and who we have been." During Graham's second round of questioning, Gonzales tells him that government lawyers did the very best they could when they wrote the memo. "Well that's where you and I disagree," Graham retorts. "I think they did a lousy job."
Christopher Dodd today (forgive possible inaccuracies in the quotation) said:
The right to be free from torture has been a fundamental value of our nation. This has never been in doubt. It has never been seriously debated. Always considered to be intrinsic, founded on our belief that all persons are endowed with certain inalienable rights. Judge Gonzales has stood in conflict with laws and treaties, and helped shaped those policies to the great detriment of our standing in the world.while Feingold weighed in with
[In] Judge Gonzales' appearance before the Judiciary Committee, he failed to indicate that he would be bound by the rule of law. He reiterated erroneous interpretations on the effect of the Geneva Convention, and refused time after time to repudiate the conclusion that the president has power to immunize those under his direction.Many other fine words were spoken today, sadly almost strictly on a partisan split. We should thank our Senators who have the conviction to oppose this nominee.
Sunday, 30 January 2005
No on Gonzales Fliers Are Ready!
Grab them, print them (use a high speed printer if you have one, color not needed), pass them out, and spread the word. Let me know where you passed them out.
Saturday, 29 January 2005
Leafleting Suggestions
Printing out the fliers:
> Make sure you are printing out the flier with the image! The all text version is the old one. This page should link to the correct ones now.
> Use a high speed printer if you have one - black & white is fine
> Print on brightly but lightly colored paper, but white if it's all you have
> If you don't have your own, find a shipping or other store that has a paper cutter (scissors would be a major hassle)
Before you go:
> Check your Senators' websites and find out if they've already taken a position, and incorporate it into what you repeat as you pass them out. If they are on the judiciary committee, then they already have taken a stand (along party lines), but people shoud still call even those members, thanking the Dems and asking the Repubs to reconsider.
> Decide ahead of time what you will say to people. Depending on how fast the pedestrian traffic is moving time will be very limited. Have a couple of versions ready.
Choosing your location:
> Choose a high traffic place where people are on the move
Leafleting:
> Two people are better than one, the second further along to catch those who missed the first
> Depending on location, 4 or 5 people may be best
> Be ready to sound like a broken record, don't be silent! It's a largely different set of people who are inclined to take political leaflets, than those who take commercial ones - we might as well get them into the more receptive hands. Practice beforehand - I used "Call your Senators about Gonzales nomination" - it's a mouthful, and then "Thank the Senator for her opposition" when the flier was taken. That won't work everywhere. Decide on something you're comfortable with and keep talking.
> Hold a single leaflet out at a time, where it is easy to grab
> Be pleasant, but don't get distracted, ignore the trolls and move on to the next.
Reply to this if you have other suggestions. I'm by no means a veteran at this, and I may be spoiled by living in a relatively liberal community.
> Make sure you are printing out the flier with the image! The all text version is the old one. This page should link to the correct ones now.
> Use a high speed printer if you have one - black & white is fine
> Print on brightly but lightly colored paper, but white if it's all you have
> If you don't have your own, find a shipping or other store that has a paper cutter (scissors would be a major hassle)
Before you go:
> Check your Senators' websites and find out if they've already taken a position, and incorporate it into what you repeat as you pass them out. If they are on the judiciary committee, then they already have taken a stand (along party lines), but people shoud still call even those members, thanking the Dems and asking the Repubs to reconsider.
> Decide ahead of time what you will say to people. Depending on how fast the pedestrian traffic is moving time will be very limited. Have a couple of versions ready.
Choosing your location:
> Choose a high traffic place where people are on the move
Leafleting:
> Two people are better than one, the second further along to catch those who missed the first
> Depending on location, 4 or 5 people may be best
> Be ready to sound like a broken record, don't be silent! It's a largely different set of people who are inclined to take political leaflets, than those who take commercial ones - we might as well get them into the more receptive hands. Practice beforehand - I used "Call your Senators about Gonzales nomination" - it's a mouthful, and then "Thank the Senator for her opposition" when the flier was taken. That won't work everywhere. Decide on something you're comfortable with and keep talking.
> Hold a single leaflet out at a time, where it is easy to grab
> Be pleasant, but don't get distracted, ignore the trolls and move on to the next.
Reply to this if you have other suggestions. I'm by no means a veteran at this, and I may be spoiled by living in a relatively liberal community.
Friday, 28 January 2005
It Can't All Happen in Cyberspace
Blogs are uniting against Gonzales, and that's terrific. There's no substitute for face to face contact, though. Creating a buzz on the net is one thing, but being a physical presence in the community is where we have to go.
Living on an island, large segments of my community are funneled through our ferry system every day, and I leafleted those departing commuter runs both yesterday evening and this morning. It's my own community so a lot of people know me and a lot don't. I just got into the rhythm of chanting "Call your senators about the Gonzales' nomination", and when they grabbed the flyer, "Thank Senator Cantwell for her opposition." My leaflet was created in a hurry, but I wanted to make sure it was available for every state, in the belief that this should be a national effort.
Here's the thing. We may have the early part of next week to really push to have more people call. My challenge to whomever wants to take it on, is to make a far more compelling flyer. I think it's a good idea to keep it to a quarter page, to save paper and enforce brevity and punchiness. I have the spreadsheet ready to merge in the Senators' phone numbers for every state, so contact me with your ideas so we can work together this weekend to update the page and spread the word. On my leaflet I refer folks to this page on my blog. So also critique that or suggest or create a better online resource to reference - preferably with a short URL not prone to being misconstrued.
Finally, the best bloggers aren't necessarily the best leafleters, though I found it really invigorating, and heartily recommend it to anyone. Reach out through party or other connections to find people who are effective at finding the places to go and people who are good at hawking flyers. A really massive caller turnout may just be the difference in providing the Democrats with the backbone to filibuster, or even give moderate Republicans pause about voting in such an unpopular choice. Even the right-wingers need to be called, else they will claim their constituents back their crazy agenda. I do appreciate the feeling of futility a progressive Oklahoman must feel when leaving messages with Inhofe and Coburn, but I think their staffers really will tally the calls regardless. Everything counts.
Living on an island, large segments of my community are funneled through our ferry system every day, and I leafleted those departing commuter runs both yesterday evening and this morning. It's my own community so a lot of people know me and a lot don't. I just got into the rhythm of chanting "Call your senators about the Gonzales' nomination", and when they grabbed the flyer, "Thank Senator Cantwell for her opposition." My leaflet was created in a hurry, but I wanted to make sure it was available for every state, in the belief that this should be a national effort.
Here's the thing. We may have the early part of next week to really push to have more people call. My challenge to whomever wants to take it on, is to make a far more compelling flyer. I think it's a good idea to keep it to a quarter page, to save paper and enforce brevity and punchiness. I have the spreadsheet ready to merge in the Senators' phone numbers for every state, so contact me with your ideas so we can work together this weekend to update the page and spread the word. On my leaflet I refer folks to this page on my blog. So also critique that or suggest or create a better online resource to reference - preferably with a short URL not prone to being misconstrued.
Finally, the best bloggers aren't necessarily the best leafleters, though I found it really invigorating, and heartily recommend it to anyone. Reach out through party or other connections to find people who are effective at finding the places to go and people who are good at hawking flyers. A really massive caller turnout may just be the difference in providing the Democrats with the backbone to filibuster, or even give moderate Republicans pause about voting in such an unpopular choice. Even the right-wingers need to be called, else they will claim their constituents back their crazy agenda. I do appreciate the feeling of futility a progressive Oklahoman must feel when leaving messages with Inhofe and Coburn, but I think their staffers really will tally the calls regardless. Everything counts.
Wednesday, 26 January 2005
Judiciary Democrats Unite Against Gonzales
The unanimity among Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee is very encouraging. Boxer's courage on Foreign Relations and on the Senate floor vis-a-vis the Rice nomination is perhaps contagious. I would never have advised a filibuster against Rice, however. This one is different.
Obstructionism in defense of sanity, and the very reputation of our nation, is no vice! Call your senators regardless of their party! Call the leading moderate Republicans [McCain, Hagel, Chafee, Snowe, Collins, Lugar, Specter] as well. If enough see the potential damage to our country of this ill-advised choice for Attorney General, maybe we won't even have to filibuster.
Obstructionism in defense of sanity, and the very reputation of our nation, is no vice! Call your senators regardless of their party! Call the leading moderate Republicans [McCain, Hagel, Chafee, Snowe, Collins, Lugar, Specter] as well. If enough see the potential damage to our country of this ill-advised choice for Attorney General, maybe we won't even have to filibuster.
Tuesday, 25 January 2005
Be Resolute and Strong, but also Kind and Fair
Anger is a motivating initial response when the sheer meanness or short-sightedness of a policy or appointment really hits home. And in our action and reaction it is right and just to speak the truth plainly, when we see fear exploited - to gut a noble program; or wage a war; or excuse inhumane behavior. But if our compassion is limited to only those who agree with us, then we will stand alone and be marginalized. Only when we demonstrate our caring for those whose fear is being exploited successfully, and even for those who are exploiting it, can we reach out and in time have the truth we see so clearly be seen more broadly, and eventually accepted as obvious in the mainstream culture.
Nelson Mandela after years in prison tells us in his essay, The Dark Years,
Nelson Mandela after years in prison tells us in his essay, The Dark Years,
I knew as well as I knew anything that the oppressor must be liberated just as surely as the oppressed. A man who takes away another man's freedom is a prisoner of hatred; he is locked behind the bars of prejudice and narrow-mindedness. I am not truly free if I am taking away someone else's freedom, just as surely as I am not free when my freedom is taken from me. The oppressed and the oppressor alike are robbed of their humanity.From The Impossible Will Take a Little While, edited by Paul Loeb.
When I walked out of prison, that was my mission, to liberate the oppressed and the oppressor both. ... For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.
AGNO
Call your Senators now!
Their phone numbers are here
Let them know that you oppose the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General of the United States.
This is from a letter to the editor at Stars & Stripes signed by many prominent retired military officers:
- State your purpose clearly
- Be calm and be brief
Remember you are talking to a staffer who is basically taking a tally. They are not responsible for the President's choices, only for registering your opinion.
If you feel, as I have come to feel, that this is one of those rare cases where the Democrats should employ a filibuster (voting against cloture), then let them know that.
If you want to go the extra mile, call the most moderate Republicans in the Senate and urge them to draw the line with their Democratic colleagues against this ill-advised appointment.
202-224-2921 Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island
202-224-2235 John McCain of Arizona
202-224-2523 Susan Collins of Maine
202-224-5344 Olympia Snowe of Maine
202-224-4814 Richard Lugar of Indiana
202-224-4224 Chuck Hagel of Nebraska
202-224-4254 Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania
An assessment of the Gonzales hearing with more links
Another assessment by the Quakers
An article from The Nation
My article at WatchBlog
DailyKos has generated a lot of excellent discussion on the nomination here and here and here and here.
Their phone numbers are here
Let them know that you oppose the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General of the United States.
This is from a letter to the editor at Stars & Stripes signed by many prominent retired military officers:
As retired professional military leaders of the U.S. armed forces, we are deeply concerned about the nomination of Alberto R. Gonzales to be attorney general. We feel that his views concerning the role of the Geneva Conventions in U.S. detention and interrogation policy and practice have put soldiers in harm’s way.Not convinced? Scroll to the bottom and follow the links.
During his tenure as White House counsel, Gonzales appears to have played a significant role in shaping U.S. detention and interrogation operations in Afghanistan; Iraq; Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere.
Today, it is clear that these operations have:
--Fostered greater animosity toward the United States;
--Undermined our intelligence-gathering efforts; and
--Added to the risks facing our troops serving around the world.
Calling tips:- Give your name
- State your purpose clearly
- Be calm and be brief
Remember you are talking to a staffer who is basically taking a tally. They are not responsible for the President's choices, only for registering your opinion.
If you feel, as I have come to feel, that this is one of those rare cases where the Democrats should employ a filibuster (voting against cloture), then let them know that.
If you want to go the extra mile, call the most moderate Republicans in the Senate and urge them to draw the line with their Democratic colleagues against this ill-advised appointment.
202-224-2921 Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island
202-224-2235 John McCain of Arizona
202-224-2523 Susan Collins of Maine
202-224-5344 Olympia Snowe of Maine
202-224-4814 Richard Lugar of Indiana
202-224-4224 Chuck Hagel of Nebraska
202-224-4254 Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania
An assessment of the Gonzales hearing with more links
Another assessment by the Quakers
An article from The Nation
My article at WatchBlog
DailyKos has generated a lot of excellent discussion on the nomination here and here and here and here.
Print more leaflets
Phone Calls are Suggested
Daily Kos's hotspur believes that phone calls are more effective than emails in getting through to your senators, and provides all the phone numbers in his post.
Armando continues to track this issue closely, and opposition is mounting. We've got to keep the pressure on.
If Gonzales' nomination gets through committee, as is likely, but with significant opposition, then it's on to pressuring EVERY senator to take a stand against this brazen attempt to install someone who disdains international law as America's top law enforcement official.
Armando continues to track this issue closely, and opposition is mounting. We've got to keep the pressure on.
If Gonzales' nomination gets through committee, as is likely, but with significant opposition, then it's on to pressuring EVERY senator to take a stand against this brazen attempt to install someone who disdains international law as America's top law enforcement official.
Monday, 24 January 2005
Act on Gonzales Nomination Now!
Do you live in Alabama, Arizona, California, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, or Wisconsin?
The Judiciary Committee takes this up again on Wednesday. Go to my earlier post, and scroll to the bottom for the links to Senators' web forms or email addresses.
The Judiciary Committee takes this up again on Wednesday. Go to my earlier post, and scroll to the bottom for the links to Senators' web forms or email addresses.
Friday, 21 January 2005
A Time to Say No
[UPDATE 3:
Now that Gonzales is out of the judiciary, it is time to contact every senator about their upcoming votes. If you want to leaflet go to this page and print out the appropriate flyer for your state - preferably on brightly colored paper - and go down to the transit center, mall, or local hangout.]
[UPDATE 2 (UPDATE 1 is at end):
Daily Kos's hotspur believes that phone calls are more effective than emails in getting through to your senators, and provides all the phone numbers in his post.
Armando continues to track this issue closely, and opposition is mounting. We've got to keep the pressure on. If it gets through committee but with significant opposition, then it's on to pressuring EVERY senator to take a stand against this brazen attempt to install someone who disdains international law as America's top law enforcement official.]
Armando, over at DailyKos, was right on target in what he wrote about the Democrats' role and responsibilities vis-a-vis the Gonzales confirmation, and cabinet confirmations in general:
It now looks like we have at least another week to contact our Senators with strong messages. Sure it's a long shot, but if the Democrats would stand united, and the six most moderate Republicans were flooded with millions of objections from around the country, maybe we could get his nomination withdrawn without need for a filibuster. I'm planning to write both of my Senators (again), and send emails to McCain, Hagel, Specter, Collins, Snowe, Lugar, and Chafee.
I have no illusions that these moderate Republican Senators are going to get any progressive legislation through in the coming session, but they are our best defense against the extreme excesses we're likely to encounter. It's not a secret, they might as well hear from us.
A sizable anti-Gonzales demonstration on the Capitol steps would be welcome as well.
[UPDATE: This still isn't out of the judiciary committee - so ...
Do you live in Alabama, Arizona, California, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, or Wisconsin?
Time is running short to make your voice heard regarding the nomination of Alberto Gonzales. I believe the Senate Judiciary Committee is taking it up again this Wednesday. Please call or write your senator, especially if you have a senator on the committee. Even if your senator on the committee is Republican write them and get your Republican friends and relatives who have sufficient common sense to understand why AG is a bad choice for AG to write them. Let them know the position of Attorney General is far too important to be left in the hands of someone whose credibility has been irreparably damaged by his known legal counsel. That counsel has in some measure contributed to prisoner abuse cases at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and elsewhere, which have tarnished our nation's reputation as an example for Justice. Even though Gonzales himself may be an upstanding citizen, (and remember your Senators may know Gonzales, and be unmoved by letters and calls which attack him personally) this public record of counsel damages his effectiveness and credibility from the outset. Be respectful but firm. President Bush needs to find another choice for this important position from the large pool of qualified candidates.
Act today or tomorrow!]
Now that Gonzales is out of the judiciary, it is time to contact every senator about their upcoming votes. If you want to leaflet go to this page and print out the appropriate flyer for your state - preferably on brightly colored paper - and go down to the transit center, mall, or local hangout.]
[UPDATE 2 (UPDATE 1 is at end):
Daily Kos's hotspur believes that phone calls are more effective than emails in getting through to your senators, and provides all the phone numbers in his post.
Armando continues to track this issue closely, and opposition is mounting. We've got to keep the pressure on. If it gets through committee but with significant opposition, then it's on to pressuring EVERY senator to take a stand against this brazen attempt to install someone who disdains international law as America's top law enforcement official.]
Armando, over at DailyKos, was right on target in what he wrote about the Democrats' role and responsibilities vis-a-vis the Gonzales confirmation, and cabinet confirmations in general:
Democratic Senators ... regarding the level of deference a President is accorded in the formation of his Cabinet ... have argued that the standard of review for a Cabinet position nominee is lower than that applied to a lifetime appointment to the federal bench.It may be a credit to our system that partisans don't routinely vote against all cabinet nominees with whom they have policy differences, but that doesn't mean they should give carte blanche to the President to install any ideologue regardless of qualifications. I just hope these Democrats have learned something from the bitter experience of having played nice by granting Bush a free pass for military action in Iraq in the fall of 2002, and then getting labelled as "flip-floppers" when he abused the privilege.
... But higher deference is not the equivalent of a free pass. Some standards remain. Otherwise there would be no role at all for the Senate. ...
Alberto Gonzales can not, by any measure, meet the minimum standard required to approve his confirmation as Attorney General of the United States of America. Many would quibble about his qualifications ...
But one issue unconditionally DISQUALIFIES Gonzales as an acceptable choice for Attorney General - his indefensible role in providing a legal apologia for torture as official policy of the United States.
It now looks like we have at least another week to contact our Senators with strong messages. Sure it's a long shot, but if the Democrats would stand united, and the six most moderate Republicans were flooded with millions of objections from around the country, maybe we could get his nomination withdrawn without need for a filibuster. I'm planning to write both of my Senators (again), and send emails to McCain, Hagel, Specter, Collins, Snowe, Lugar, and Chafee.
I have no illusions that these moderate Republican Senators are going to get any progressive legislation through in the coming session, but they are our best defense against the extreme excesses we're likely to encounter. It's not a secret, they might as well hear from us.
A sizable anti-Gonzales demonstration on the Capitol steps would be welcome as well.
[UPDATE: This still isn't out of the judiciary committee - so ...
Do you live in Alabama, Arizona, California, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, or Wisconsin?
Time is running short to make your voice heard regarding the nomination of Alberto Gonzales. I believe the Senate Judiciary Committee is taking it up again this Wednesday. Please call or write your senator, especially if you have a senator on the committee. Even if your senator on the committee is Republican write them and get your Republican friends and relatives who have sufficient common sense to understand why AG is a bad choice for AG to write them. Let them know the position of Attorney General is far too important to be left in the hands of someone whose credibility has been irreparably damaged by his known legal counsel. That counsel has in some measure contributed to prisoner abuse cases at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and elsewhere, which have tarnished our nation's reputation as an example for Justice. Even though Gonzales himself may be an upstanding citizen, (and remember your Senators may know Gonzales, and be unmoved by letters and calls which attack him personally) this public record of counsel damages his effectiveness and credibility from the outset. Be respectful but firm. President Bush needs to find another choice for this important position from the large pool of qualified candidates.
Act today or tomorrow!]
Saturday, 6 November 2004
Moving forward
America has made a grievous error.
I'm not going to spend much effort analyzing why. As Matthew Yglesias notes, "these things are multicausal. Elections are complicated." When elections are very close it's easy enough to make the argument that the results hinged on one particular cause (e.g., the Massachusetts gay marriage court decision), but there are dozens of factors that moved significant chunks of votes one way or another. It's simplistic to single out one or two as being crucial.
I was surprised by the result. Nonetheless the best I was hoping for was a 52-47 break for Kerry. Either way we're talking about closely split electorate. A real surprise would have been for either candidate to have a 10 point victory. It's really remarkable how the media pundits imbue the opinions and feelings of what's really a small minority of voters - those voting for the first time, or those who remained on the fence until the end - with so much meaning. Of course they are very important, because they have a great deal to do with the ultimate result. But let us not confuse their decision with the decision of the country at large. An overwhelming majority of Americans voted the way they had planned to vote two years ago, even before we knew who the Democratic nominee would be.
Too much of all that; what now?
In the last several years millions of progressives have made connections through organizations like MoveOn, Democracy for America, and countless other issues oriented groups which have been energized by a commitment to fighting against disturbing trends in our nation's governance. As awful as a continued Bush presidency is likely to be, it does provide a nucleus around which to rally our resolve. Bush may talk about reaching out to those who voted for his opponent, but the fact remains that his agenda for this country remains an anathema to many of us who value economic justice, stewardship of the environment, respect for various cultures, scientific inquiry unburdened by the agenda of profiteers, consumer protection, and world peace.
But let's be honest. Many if not most of Bush's supporters share a large portion of those values, and earnestly believe we are mistaken about how best to get there. If what is heard most from the 'left' is how stupid and ignorant the yahoos that voted for Bush are, then we will marginalize ourselves, and give credence to mockery from the other side. Plenty of intelligent and compassionate people made a weighted decision that the country would be better off with Bush than with Kerry. Plenty of them don't even particularly like Bush. Attacking Bush's supporters is simply counterproductive. Attacking the 'religious right' generically as zealous hypocrites, when they know themselves, and know that they do care about the less fortunate in our society, and even in poor nations around the world, simply cements their belief that we are the arrogant know-it-alls who don't, in fact, know it all.
What needs to happen instead is to focus investigation on policy and its effect. Bush will be able to enact a great deal of legislation in the next four years which will have deleterious effects on many undeserving victims. We will need to find those stories and tell them, relentlessly. We will be well served to be civil in our discourse, but we need not avoid harshness when it's warranted. And I'm afraid it will be frequently warranted. We need to define our alternative policies and get our representatives to vote for them. Filibusters may be occasionally appropriate, but if they become the order of the day, Democrats will just be seen as obstructionists and lose further ground in Congress in 2006. It is better to vote against the bad bills and lose, and let the blame rest squarely where it belongs when the results of those bills come home to roost. There's no particular reason to believe bipartisanship will be strong in the next four years. Alliances with moderates across the aisle could be important in removing some of the worst pieces of legislation, but I don't hold out much faith for that being a major source of solace.
We also must continue the organization and movement that is now one of the strongest progressive movements America has ever known. We have tools at our disposal, and the Bill of Rights has not yet been overturned. If the administration overreaches in stifling our free speech rights, I still believe a majority of Americans will cry foul, even if they don't agree with our speech.
The arts will remain a major source of free expression, and one that can reach across ideological boundaries. We should expect an explosion of activity from creative people the world over, whether it's street theater, web humor, public poetry slams, or more conventional writing and theater presentations.
Personally, I will continue my crusade to push the point that reasonable people can have radical ideas, and society can benefit by synthesizing wisdom from disparate perspectives. Good people abound throughout society, including positions of influence in government or the boardrooms of industry. Alliances with these people are essential in keeping our hope alive.
The results of this election are a bitter disappointment. Some grieving is appropriate. But as I keep hear people saying, tomorrow the sun will still rise. People will still strive to move forward and great hope always remains. In the coming months, I plan to start featuring profiles of heroes and sages, both of our time and of times past. These people who persevered through monumental hardship to accomplish great strides provide enormous inspiration to those of us who may see obstacles to our progress as overwhelming.
Keep the faith!
I'm not going to spend much effort analyzing why. As Matthew Yglesias notes, "these things are multicausal. Elections are complicated." When elections are very close it's easy enough to make the argument that the results hinged on one particular cause (e.g., the Massachusetts gay marriage court decision), but there are dozens of factors that moved significant chunks of votes one way or another. It's simplistic to single out one or two as being crucial.
I was surprised by the result. Nonetheless the best I was hoping for was a 52-47 break for Kerry. Either way we're talking about closely split electorate. A real surprise would have been for either candidate to have a 10 point victory. It's really remarkable how the media pundits imbue the opinions and feelings of what's really a small minority of voters - those voting for the first time, or those who remained on the fence until the end - with so much meaning. Of course they are very important, because they have a great deal to do with the ultimate result. But let us not confuse their decision with the decision of the country at large. An overwhelming majority of Americans voted the way they had planned to vote two years ago, even before we knew who the Democratic nominee would be.
Too much of all that; what now?
In the last several years millions of progressives have made connections through organizations like MoveOn, Democracy for America, and countless other issues oriented groups which have been energized by a commitment to fighting against disturbing trends in our nation's governance. As awful as a continued Bush presidency is likely to be, it does provide a nucleus around which to rally our resolve. Bush may talk about reaching out to those who voted for his opponent, but the fact remains that his agenda for this country remains an anathema to many of us who value economic justice, stewardship of the environment, respect for various cultures, scientific inquiry unburdened by the agenda of profiteers, consumer protection, and world peace.
But let's be honest. Many if not most of Bush's supporters share a large portion of those values, and earnestly believe we are mistaken about how best to get there. If what is heard most from the 'left' is how stupid and ignorant the yahoos that voted for Bush are, then we will marginalize ourselves, and give credence to mockery from the other side. Plenty of intelligent and compassionate people made a weighted decision that the country would be better off with Bush than with Kerry. Plenty of them don't even particularly like Bush. Attacking Bush's supporters is simply counterproductive. Attacking the 'religious right' generically as zealous hypocrites, when they know themselves, and know that they do care about the less fortunate in our society, and even in poor nations around the world, simply cements their belief that we are the arrogant know-it-alls who don't, in fact, know it all.
What needs to happen instead is to focus investigation on policy and its effect. Bush will be able to enact a great deal of legislation in the next four years which will have deleterious effects on many undeserving victims. We will need to find those stories and tell them, relentlessly. We will be well served to be civil in our discourse, but we need not avoid harshness when it's warranted. And I'm afraid it will be frequently warranted. We need to define our alternative policies and get our representatives to vote for them. Filibusters may be occasionally appropriate, but if they become the order of the day, Democrats will just be seen as obstructionists and lose further ground in Congress in 2006. It is better to vote against the bad bills and lose, and let the blame rest squarely where it belongs when the results of those bills come home to roost. There's no particular reason to believe bipartisanship will be strong in the next four years. Alliances with moderates across the aisle could be important in removing some of the worst pieces of legislation, but I don't hold out much faith for that being a major source of solace.
We also must continue the organization and movement that is now one of the strongest progressive movements America has ever known. We have tools at our disposal, and the Bill of Rights has not yet been overturned. If the administration overreaches in stifling our free speech rights, I still believe a majority of Americans will cry foul, even if they don't agree with our speech.
The arts will remain a major source of free expression, and one that can reach across ideological boundaries. We should expect an explosion of activity from creative people the world over, whether it's street theater, web humor, public poetry slams, or more conventional writing and theater presentations.
Personally, I will continue my crusade to push the point that reasonable people can have radical ideas, and society can benefit by synthesizing wisdom from disparate perspectives. Good people abound throughout society, including positions of influence in government or the boardrooms of industry. Alliances with these people are essential in keeping our hope alive.
The results of this election are a bitter disappointment. Some grieving is appropriate. But as I keep hear people saying, tomorrow the sun will still rise. People will still strive to move forward and great hope always remains. In the coming months, I plan to start featuring profiles of heroes and sages, both of our time and of times past. These people who persevered through monumental hardship to accomplish great strides provide enormous inspiration to those of us who may see obstacles to our progress as overwhelming.
Keep the faith!
Monday, 31 May 2004
Idealistic Vision & Practical Considerations
I've always been an idealist. At times that's led to naivete, but it scarcely means that I can't weigh practical concerns in reaching conclusions. Indeed it is never necessary that idealism be naive. Martin Luther King Jr was extraordinarily effective because of his ability to predict the practical outcomes of group actions he endorsed, while never losing sight of the idealistic vision, which was the underpinning of the changes he espoused.
It strikes me that a very common course is for people who follow their ideals early and get burned one or more times to become cynical and start to favor practical courses of action over idealistic ones as a matter of policy. The world very much needs pragmatists skilled in predicting outcomes, but when pragmatism becomes the goal, and idealistic vision is mocked as naive, then pragmatism loses its point altogether.
It is my intent to present the ideal and ask "Why not?" Sometimes there's a good answer, but even then keeping a vision of the ideal gives us a yardstick against which to measure the various outcomes short of the ideal which are within reach. After that it is all cost/benefit analysis, but proximity to ideals needs to be kept as a highly desired benefit, else we stray down a random road without much meaning.
It strikes me that a very common course is for people who follow their ideals early and get burned one or more times to become cynical and start to favor practical courses of action over idealistic ones as a matter of policy. The world very much needs pragmatists skilled in predicting outcomes, but when pragmatism becomes the goal, and idealistic vision is mocked as naive, then pragmatism loses its point altogether.
It is my intent to present the ideal and ask "Why not?" Sometimes there's a good answer, but even then keeping a vision of the ideal gives us a yardstick against which to measure the various outcomes short of the ideal which are within reach. After that it is all cost/benefit analysis, but proximity to ideals needs to be kept as a highly desired benefit, else we stray down a random road without much meaning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
