THE AMERICAN DELUSION - TAKE 2

By: Thomas McKelvey Cleaver

A friend from the other side of the political spectrum and I were discussing the question of American international debt and its influence on policymaking. He commented that when Donald Trump was deeply in debt a few years ago, that he considered it a problem for his creditors, not for him. In many ways, the Bush Administration seems to think the same way as "The Donald" - but they fail to consider that there's a huge difference between an individual businessman, no matter how wealthy he is, going bankrupt and the world's most powerful state going through such an event.

In his masterful "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers", historian Paul Kennedy argued that great powers typically fail when military reach outstrips that nation's economic strength.

Recent events point in that direction for the United States. Consider:

On Thursday, March 10, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, when asked about the risks of having reserves too concentrated in one currency, told a parliamentary committee, "I believe diversification is necessary." His comment rekindled speculation in the currency market that the Japanese government - which with a total $840.6 billion in U.S. Treasury bonds holds the world's largest dollar-denominated foreign-exchange reserves - could shift out of dollars. The comment led to a drop in the dollar exchange rate with the yen, though the dollar recovered after the Ministry of Finance stated Japan had no plans to shift funds out of the dollar.

This latest gyration came after a downward spike in the dollar in February after the Korean central bank, which has the world's fourth-largest foreign-exchange reserves, referred in an annual report to possible diversification.

In January, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Fan Gang - Director of the National Economic Research Institute at the China Reform Foundation - said the issue for China isn't whether to devalue the Yuan but "to limit it from the U.S. Dollar." He went on to say (in English, to be sure he was not misunderstood): "The U.S. dollar, in our opinion, is no longer seen as a stable currency, and is devaluating all the time, and that's putting troubles all the time. So the real issue is how to change the regime from a U.S. dollar pegging to a more manageable reference...say Euros, Yen, Dollars, those kind of more diversified systems."

China now holds the second-largest dollar-denominated foreign-exchange reserves after Japan. In the past two years, China has replaced Japan as the largest trading partner of the United States.

Understanding all this depends on understanding the present situation of the current account deficit, which is an outgrowth of our biggest domestic economic problem - the shortfall of national saving. Since the First Quarter of 2002, our net national saving rate, which is the combined saving of individuals, businesses and government - adjusted for depreciation - is now at a record low of 1.5% of GDP. Because of this, the United States must import foreign savings in order to keep growing at acceptable rates. Thus, we run massive and ever-widening current account deficits to attract that foreign capital, making up for out lack of domestic savings.

As of the 4th Quarter of 2004, the current account deficit of the United States hit an all-time record of 6.3% of GDP, and the trade deficit on goods accounted for 98% of this because more and more the United States doesn't make things, at least not things the rest of the world wants to buy.

This current account deficit is a 1.8 percentage point deterioration from the 4.5% deficit announced a year earlier. This is not only a record current-account deficit for the United States, it is also a record financing burden for the rest of the world. We now require the rest of the world to buy an average of $2.9 billion of American debt - sold as Treasury Bonds - each and every business day just to keep the magic going. As a country, the United States is a family living paycheck to paycheck who has to go to the Payday Advance loan sharks every week, just to put food on the table and keep the bills paid.

This past Wednesday, March 16, the 4th Quarter 04 current account deficit was announced. On the same day General Motors announced a record earnings loss, and oil prices climbed to a record $56 per barrel.

This all comes together as results stemming from a single cause: The budget deficits run up by the Bush Administration in the past three years - now at record levels - have been crucial in pushing the national savings rate to a record lows. It is the capital inflows, and the trade deficits behind them, that are required to compensate for these budget deficits and so that a saving-short America can get the foreign aid it needs to keep on growing. This is "Big Government Conservatism" - otherwise known as "Bushonomics" - in action. We are running our own Ponzi scheme on ourselves.

The record increase in the price of oil is connected to all this. In real terms, $56 a barrel oil is a 400% increase in price from the lows of late 1998, which puts this on a par with the devastating blows we experienced in the 1970s. The sharp run-up of oil prices is the equivalent of a tax on household purchasing power that only digs the hole deeper for the already over-extended American consumer. Personally, I don't feel that bad watching SUV owners debate the question of whether to fill the tank or buy food for the family that week, but that's merely a personal feeling. In fact, as American families have to decide whether to fill the tank or buy food, this will lead to deferrals on other purchases that have kept the economy going over the past four years of the first Bush Administration. Falling demand for SUVs was reported on the business pages of the LA Times this past week. No wonder GM made the report it did - my bet is Ford and the others won't be far behind.

Of course, the Bush Administration's spin is that the rest of the world can't get enough of dollar-denominated assets because of the returns they offer in an otherwise return-starved economic environment. This is about as accurate a view of what is really what as "Saddam had WMDs" and "We're winning in Iraq."

The truth is the foreign capital pouring in at $2.9 billion a day is not the result of private investors plunging back into American assets. It is the result of policy decisions by foreign central banks. Total reserves increased by about $700 billion from year-end 2003 to year-end 2004, which implies an increase of nearly $500 billion in dollar-denominated holdings by the world's central banks. In other words, foreign central banks financed approximately 75% of America's current account deficit last year.

It is here that the Donald Trump analogy comes into play. This purchase of American debt is a bold attempt by foreign central banks to keep their dollar exchange rates from rising - thus maintaining their current account surpluses - and thus defer what could be a painfully-classic U.S. current account adjustment complete with a further decline in the dollar and sharply higher US interest rates. In other words, the central banks are providing a subsidy to American interest rates, which have allowed for such events as the drastic increase in housing value to the point where people like me are starting to remember the Real Estate Bust of 1989-90 here in California. This subsidy has been what has cushioned the blows of stagnant real wages and surging oil prices that would otherwise clobber the American consumer, and allows Bush to maintain his policy of coddling the comfortable.

When I was a teenager, I worked as a lifeguard at the local swimming pool. One thing we learned in water safety class was that our job did not include "going down with the ship." In other words, there comes a point where a would-be rescuer might have to let go of the drowning man. That is the point at which the rescuer realizes the drowning man can pull the rescuer down with him. The message that has been delivered at Davos, in Tokyo and Seoul in the past sixty days is that the central bankers are close to realizing they may have to let go of the drowning man.

The message is that the Republican's game is just about over. One by one, the Asian central banks who hold our Payday Advance checks have dropped increasingly less-subtle hints that they are saturated with dollar-denominated holdings. Korea, Japan, China, India, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Singapore - all are coming to see these massive dollar overweights as a threat to their continued well-being.

Like Donald Trump, the standard Bush response borders on arrogance: "What choice do they have?" This comes from the presumption that we export-driven Asian economies over a barrel, that they are unwilling to accept the deterioration in export competitiveness currency appreciation might bring. This misses the key cost-benefit tradeoff - the moment when the rescuer has to decide whether or not to be dragged down by the drowning man - as the governments of these countries weigh the damage to exports against the fiscal cost of a loss on holdings of dollar-denominated assets. These are not private investors who have to worry only about themselves - these are governments who are ultimately responsible to their citizens and must inevitably think in terms of national interest. The bigger the dollar reserves, the more this cost-benefit analysis is likely to come to the policy decision of dollar diversification. And this spells the end of America's cut-rate foreign financing.

In addition to the economic news of the past two weeks, there is political news of more than passing interest. The People's Congress, meeting in Beijing, passed a law making any attempt by Taiwan to declare independence a cause for war. Bush recently declared that it is American official policy to support Taiwan in the event of a war between them and the mainland. We even got the Japanese to formally declare a national interest in maintaining the current status of Taiwan.

Consider the day that the Taiwanese declare independence. It won't be a struggle between the Chinese Navy and two American carrier battle groups in the Taiwan Straits. The Chinese in Beijing will only need to put in a call to Washington and inform the Secretary of the Treasury that they are planning to diversify their foreign exchange reserves into Euros.

The result of that move - with the Japanese, Koreans, and all the others following suit in order to protect their own national economies - will be an American economy that makes 1929 look like Good Times. Is there an American President of either party - or an American political party - that could take that sort of hit?

Taiwan independence is only one of several possible scenarios that hold this sort of outcome for the United States. The rest of the world doesn't need to draft a single soldier to bring the greatest superpower in history to its knees. As Paul Kennedy has pointed out, every Great Power going back to the Roman Empire has fallen when military reach outstrips that nation's economic strength.

YOUR ASSIGNMENT, SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO ACCEPT IT...

By: Thomas McKelvey Cleaver

The House of Representatives and the Senate went on two weeks of Spring Break this past Friday, March 18.

I was going to suggest this weekend that you be sure to find out where your Congressman is meeting with his or her constituents, and be sure to drop by and ask some real questions about the real issues we face today.

That might not be so easy to do. It turns out that your assignment, should you accept it, may well be finding a way to sneak into the meeting your representative - if they're a Republican - has decided to hold as they take a page from the President's playbook.

At his press conference this last Wednesday, Bubble Boy said he thought the Congress Critters should go back to their districts and "talk to their constituents not only about the problem, but about solutions. I urge members to start talking about how we're going to permanently fix Social Security."

As is usual, the President acts as if he never heard the word "hypocrisy." So far, Bush hasn't talked to his constituents about Social Security outside of crowds of pre-screened Republican supporters of privatization who are willing to take direction on what to say from White House advance men in a performance so obvious even the mainstream media have taken to commenting on it unfavorably in their reporting of the Bamboozlepalooza Tour. So his advice to lawmakers is that they should have discussions with voters but he shouldn't?

As usual, actions speak louder than words, and the Best CongressCritters Money Can Buy have decided to follow his example, rather than his advice. Having had some disastrous public meetings where the dialogue wasn't scripted in advance when they went home in February, House Republican Conference Chairwoman Deborah Pryce (R-Oh) and other Republican leaders are urging Congressional Republicans to hold low-profile events to avoid "March Madness." The plan is for them to stop by newspaper editorial boards, speak at Rotary Club lunches and Chamber of Commerce meetings, and other local business groups - preach to the Kool-Aid drinkers, in other words. With an invitation-only/members-only format, "there isn't an opportunity for it to disintegrate into something that's less desirable," as Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference put it.

Since it would be an unlikely happenstance that anyone reading this would be a member of any of those organizations where they can get "face time" with their Critter, perhaps those of you who find out about these meetings might want to gather outside and let the rest of the world know they're happening. You might want to talk to the local media who will be dropping by (and if they don't know about the meeting, be sure to be polite and invite them over), and raise the questions that Mr./Ms. Critter sure as hell won't be bringing up inside.

Might I suggest you talk about the "nuclear option" and the coming confirmation fights over the Terrible Ten? That's the ten judicial nominations turned down in the last Congress that the President has renominated as part of his "mandate" to take the country back to 1896.

The first one up is going to be William G. Myers III, and he's an easy target, even for the reasonable Republicans. HE LIED TO THEM in his confirmation hearings last year, and again when he testified on March 1. Just in case you aren't familiar with the Rollins Case and Myers' involvement, go here (PUT IN LINK TO MY "NUCLEAR OPTION" ARTICLE HERE). Amazingly, on a 10-8 party-line vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent the nomination on to the full Senate for confirmation. This despite comments such as that of Senator Charles Shumer (D-NY) that "the President keeps recycling nominees like William Myers, whose words and deeds make him the most anti-environmental nominee we have ever seen." Every major environmental organization, along with civil rights, labor and Native American groups oppose Myers' nomination.

Senators of both parties traditionally dislike being lied to by nominees, especially when the lie is committed under oath, when it becomes perjury. Your Republican Senator may just surprise me and hold real "constituent meetings" during the break. If so, go and politely ask them if they intend to confirm a man to a lifetime position as a Federal Appeals Court Judge who is a known perjurer - and remind them that the perjury was committed against that august body they're a member of, the United States Senate. The Kool-Aid drinkers are going to do whatever they're ordered to, but there are responsible Republicans - not to mention most Democrats - who may not be aware of this information (feel free to copy/paste the relevant information from my article into a polite e-mail to your Senator, to be sure they "get the message"). Give them a "non-partisan" reason to protect their own house, and they just might see the light.

Bring up the "nuclear option," and remind the Republicans that the day will come again when they are the minority party (sooner rather than later, I fervently pray) and that they may well live to rue the day they let short-term advantage short circuit long-term reality.

Even such a moron as Mitch McConnell appears to have gotten the message. It's reported that McConnell is reluctant to take this step because he's aware of the long-term risk. As Majority Whip, McConnell's opinion counts and many of his fellow members would be hesitant to proceed on something this important without his approval.

It's now rumored in far-right circles that McConnell has argued in closed-door meetings that there's not a sufficient public clamor for the change. The Righties plan to raise grass-roots anger at Democratic filibusters, but you have a chance these next two weeks to let your Senator know that whoever's chanting outside their door is not "the voice of the people."

At present, there are indications that Senators McCain, Hagel, Chafee, Snowe, Collins, and Specter (we should call them the Sane Republican Caucus) are not ready to support the "nuclear option," even though as Judiciary Committee Chairman Spector has led the charge to get committee approval of the Myers nomination. This potentially leaves the thugs short of a majority.

It is CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT that you make your views known to your Senator during this recess, because Republicans close to the Senate leadership plan to force the issue when the Senate returns next month by voting to end filibusters, most likely in connection with the Myers nomination. If Senators have heard about his testimony in last year's hearings, they just might get hinky over a vote for such a scummy nominee. Remember: HE'S A PERJURER!! HE LIED TO THE SENATE!!!

This is of crucial importance, folks! The other side wants to get this over now, so the rules-change fight won't smear a Supreme Court candidate. There hasn't been a Supreme Court vacancy in 10 years, but with the current situation on the court we are going to see a Chief Justice nomination and at least two other Associate Justice nominations before 2008. The Right is looking to change the court as decisively for the next 40 years as happened with Roosevelt's nominations in 1937-40, when the Court was dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th Century.

The Right knows the importance of this fight. Richard Lessner, Executive Director of the American Conservative Union, put it clearly: "As we get closer to an anticipated opening on the Supreme Court, that creates a sense of urgency to invoke [the rules change] sooner rather than later, so we put that obstacle behind us as we move into a potential Supreme Court battle. If we're going to have a battle over a Supreme Court nominee, let's not also have a simultaneous fight over Senate rules." This past week Ed Meese, Reagan's Attorney General (and a far-far-right Republican asshole I have been at war with since 1967 when he was Alameda County District Attorney) and C. Boyden Gray - George H. W. Bush's White House counsel - said they want the Senate to move ahead with the scheme, and that incompetent moron George Will has announced that he's changed his mind on the subject after advising against the "nuclear option" two weeks ago.

NO!!

Let's make them do it out in the open, where everyone can see it and see what a difference it makes. If the "nuclear option" can be defeated next month by making Senators queasy over supporting a perjuring scumbag like Myers, it's going to be more difficult for them to do it later, because (hopefully) by then the public will be educated to the fact that this isn't some "arcane rule change" that has no effect on their lives.

Folks, we are talking about the country I will be living in for the rest of my life, and the world that my young comrade here at That's Another Fine Mess will - at a minimum - live in till he qualifies for Social Security (assuming we win that fight and it's still there for him). We are talking about The Immediately-Identifiable Future. Your life.

These two weeks are crucial. Make your voice heard. Call your Senator's local office in your state. Send an e-mail. Write a letter. Find out about any meetings and attend them - ask questions. Make absolutely certain that they can't say "I didn't know." Be like Jack Webb - "just the facts." We can win on "just the facts."

Act as if your life depends on it.

Because it does.

I Don't Like Where This is Going

By: Ryan Oddey

"Those who give up essential liberty, to preserve a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." These words were spoken by Benjamin Franklin prior to the Revolutionary War Although this statement was first uttered centuries ago, the message still stands true. The sentiment voiced by Franklin is something we should all remember when we take a look at the actions and nominations of President George W. Bush.

Mr. Bush has taken actions that may appear to preserve America?s safety through his appointments of hardliners to diplomatic positions, but this sense of security will not last as our nation goes down a long and lonely road towards isolationism. Although President Bush has claimed to be a uniter, and not a
divider, the truth is that he is the latter.

George W. Bush has divided this nation, and his recent nominations will divide the United States of America from the rest of the world. Bush is not a diplomat, Bush is not a great
leader; he is a radical right revolutionary who would rather lay the groundwork for a Republican dynasty within America instead of
rebuilding strong international ties in the hopes of a better tomorrow. The President says he is making America safer, but in the end the long term outlook of Bush international policy will raise hostility towards the United States.

The key evidence that points towards Bush?s position as a radical right revolutionary. as well as his international intentions, was most recently seen over the last few months in the form of nominations of persons for positions that they should not have. Furthermore, these nominations prove one of the most
despicable facts about President Bush, that he is a hypocrite.

On Tuesday, February 22, 2005, President Bush attended a NATO summit in Belgium where he declared a "new era of trans-Atlantic unity between the U.S. and Europe. " This sentiment was echoed by new Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice in a trip she had made to Europe earlier that month. In spite of calling for stronger relations with Europe, President Bush has made policy moves that will continue to push away our neighbors around the globe.

The nomination of John Bolton to the United Nations is one glaring example of Bush?s ideology of undermining international organizations and alienating the United States from the rest of the world. John Bolton is on record saying the following: (courtesy of StopBolton.org
"[M]any Republicans in Congress--and perhaps a majority--not only do not care about losing the General Assembly vote but actually see it as a 'make my day' outcome. Indeed, once the vote is lost?? this will simply provide further evidence to why nothing more should be paid to the UN system."
The Washington Times 1998

"There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world and that is the United States when it suits our interest and we can get others
to go along."
1994 Global Structures Convocation, New York, NY.


"General Assembly Resolutions and international conference declarations, (such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Agenda 21, and the Millennium Declaration) are 'mind-numbing.'"
Policy Review. "Bring Back the Laxalt Doctrine," 2000.

"If I were redoing the Security Council today, I'd have one permanent member because that's the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world."
National Public Radio with Juan Williams, 2000.

"The Senate vote [on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty] is also an unmistakable signal that America rejects the illusionary protections of unenforceable treaties."
The Jerusalem Post, 1999.

"Renouncing the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was 'the happiest moment of my government service.'"
The Wall Street Journal, 2002.

"Support for the International Criminal Court concept is based largely on emotional appeals to an abstract ideal of an international judicial system."
Statement before the House International Relations Committee, 2000.

"We do not support the promotion of international advocacy activity by international or non-governmental organizations, particularly when those political or policy views advocated are not consistent with the views of all member states.?
Statement to the UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects, 9 July 2001. This stands in stark contrast to the official policy of the United States, which is to support and strengthen the involvement of non-governmental organizations in international processes.

The only explanation for promoting a man who has made these statements to a position of international diplomacy is to let every other nation in the world know that we are not interested in working with them. If they want to work FOR US, fine, otherwise, according to Bush, we don?t need you. Even worse,
President Bush believes that taking this approach towards the United Nations will make America safer. He could not be more wrong.

Former United States Ambassador to the U.N. Richard Holbrooke was recently quoted as saying: "If we continue to under-fund, under-support, and undermine the U.N. system it will become progressively weaker and at the same time it will become
increasingly a center for hostility to the United States, a combination, a trifecta if you will, that will hurt American national security interests in many ways."

This statement is important when you consider that the deeper the wedge between the United States and the rest of the world, the less likely the rest of the world will be likely to help assist in different programs, such as the ones designed to take out terrorists and share crucial information. Thus hurting
our national security. Or perhaps we alienate enough nations to the point where they no longer want to participate in purchasing our bonds, thus harming our financial security.

America isn?t the only one that would suffer from alienating the United Nations. Holbrooke added: "A weaker U.N. is one where the human rights commission is dominated by such terrible violators as Cuba and Libya," he said. "In other words, what is wrong with the U.N. or the human rights commission, is not the core ideas that it stands for but the instances where due to lack of American engagement and leadership the institution was hijacked by states whose practices are anathema to all the U.N. stands for."

The opportunity is there for us to lead the world by means of working with every nation around the globe. Instead, President Bush has developed an agenda where the United States is trying to force the rest of the world to go yield to our will. It will not work and yet in spite of the fallacy of this plan, Bush continues to carry on with it.

The recent nomination of Under-Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz shows just how disinterested President Bush is in establishing ties with Europe. Wolfowitz gave testimony to congress prior to the war in Iraq and stated that Iraq was a nation that would be ready, willing, and able to rebuild in a short time following the war. Wolfowitz also added that Iraq would have its own funds to use for the rebuilding process. Obviously this was not true and Wolfowitz either lied to congress or was so far off in his assessment that he has no place heading the World Bank.

The war in Iraq is not the only red flag in the political history of Paul Wolfowitz. During the term of George H.W. Bush, Wolfowitz was the Under Secretary of Defense and in this position he outlined a policy that encouraged the United States to use pre-emptive force. Furthermore, he argued that the United States should act alone when necessary. How can a man with such an isolationist approach the world be tapped to lead an international organization? The bigger question, how can Bush keep thinking this approach is in the best interest of the United States?

Bush continues to follow these policies because he has surrounded himself with ex-Trotskyists, now known as the ?neocons.? These people, including Vice President Dick Cheney and World Bank Presidential Nominee Paul Wolfowitz, subscribe to the theory of permanent revolution. Although the permanent revolution theory was first developed for the Soviet Union, we can see how the Bush administration has adopted its ideals. Most notably, the concept that the United States needs to be involved in the revolution and rebuilding of other countries so that the newly rebuilt nations will match up ideologically.

Thus we see a domino theory. If we can force enough nations to adopt our ideals it will force other nations to either join in the permanent revolution or risk being left behind. It is a way to try and force the will of the rest of the world and by nature, it is a militaristic disposition. Thus we see how Cheney and Wolfowitz can be considered Trotskyists if we consider their political history, most recently, the war in Iraq.

The problem with the Trotsky approach to international relations is that it is such a huge gamble. The Soviet Union tried to force its will on other nations in the hopes that they would adopt Russian policy and it did not work. The end result was the implosion of the Soviet Union. I believe the United States could realistically face a similar outcome. For those of you who would suggest that the Soviet Union had the super power of the United States to contend with and thus conclude that since we are the lone super power left nothing should stand in our way I offer you this: China is fast becoming another super power, but I believe the continued development of the Europan Union could result in super power status. Add in the fact that the United
States continues to see its respect drop within the international community and suddenly you have a lot of countries who want nothing to do with American Policy.

This is not the fault of America, or American society, it is the sole responsibility of President Bush and his administration. They are trying to roll the dice with the rest of the world, and force them to conform to our ideals and our interests. The longer Bush tries to force his will on the rest of the world, the worse the fall out will be.

Considering what happened to the Soviet Union, it is not impossible to believe that if this policy continues for a long enough time, it could lead to revolution within the United States. Perhaps the blue states of the northeast will grow tired of being a part of a constant war machine and call for secession. It happened in the Soviet Union.

I will concede that the likelihood of secession is minute, but because it is not an impossible idea it helps illustrate just how damaging Bush policy is overseas and at home. Unfortunately, too many people see Bush as someone who went into Iraq with the sole agenda of regime change. The reality, is that Iraq was not the end of a regime, but the beginning phases of an idea destined to try and change the world and force every other nation on the planet to essentially bend to our will.

Bush does not care about the people of Iraq, he is more concerned with trying to recreate the world so that it fits his and other neoconservatives? ideals. Now that Iraq is taken care of, we are flirting back and forth with going to war with Syria or Iran. If Bush cared about the safety of the world, North Korea
would have been on the top of the list. Instead, Bush went into the Middle East, in the name of his own revolution, not freedom.

Wolfowitz, Bolton, and other American "diplomats" are just pieces in the puzzle that is beginning to take shape. The sooner we all wake up and realize exactly what is going on here, the sooner we will be to ending this madness. And believe me, we need to take care of this sooner rather than later, before the United States of America becomes the next evil empire.

Bush the Visionary?

By Scott Isebrand

A revisionist history of Bush the Visionary-a narrative in which he authored Middle East democracy over liberals' objections-is being written right across the slackened faces of Democratic Party leaders.

Max Boot in the L.A. Times wrote this past week, "In 2003I wrote that the forthcoming fall of Baghdad 'may turn out to be one of those hinge moments
in history.after which everything is different..' At the time, this kind of talk was dismissed.as neocon nuttiness. Well, who's the simpleton now? Those
who dreamed of spreading democracy to the Arabs or those who denied that it could ever happen?"

Jeff Jacoby in The Boston Globe notes, "The Axis of Weasel is crying uncle.." He quotes Richard Gwyn of the Toronto Star: "It is time to set down in type the most difficult sentence in the English language.. It is this: Bush was right." Jacoby continues: "Claus Christian Malzahn in the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel: 'Could George W. be right?' And Guy Sorman in France's Le Figaro: 'And if Bush was right?' And NPR's Daniel Schorr in The Christian Science Monitor: 'The Iraq effect? Bush may have had it right.'
And London's Independent, in a Page 1 headline on Monday: 'Was Bush right after all?'"

The Visionary Bush is just a golden calf. Don't be misled by the rhetorical jabs-"Well, who's the simpleton now?" "Was Bush right after all?" They beg
more honest questions: Simplistic about what? Bush was right about what? Boot, Jacoby and other Bush hagiographers would have us believe that opposition to the invasion of Iraq was based on pessimism about democracy in the Middle East. That's unfair and false. Bush (and Tony Blair in Britain) peddled liberaion as a sorry second-choice excuse for invasion only after first insisting on a dubious al-Qaeda-Iraq link (quickly proved false and
doubted all along by the intelligence community) and the imminent use of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (months ago deemed non-existent by the
Administration's own inspectors).

David Brooks in The New York Times takes a different tact. Instead of Bush, he gives us Wolfowitz, "the man who's been vilified by Michael Moore and the
rest of the infantile left .." Brooks is right that Wolfowitz has been misunderstood by some commentators, mostly on the left. He's right that
Michael Moore vilified him. (So what? The Swift Boat Vets vilified John Kerry, too. The Swift Boat Liars for Bush weren't journalists striving for
objectivity; they're gross propagandists, and no one ever said Fahrenheit 9/11 was investigative journalism-it's polemic. Relax, Brooks. This is just
how the game's been played since the rightwing started pushing Clinton-killed-Vince-Foster "documentaries." They started it; now they need
to take it as well as they dish it out.)

But in the run-up to the invasion, Wolfowitz was seldom if ever cited for any grand ideals he had about democracy in the Middle East. He was cited by
invasion-backers largely for his preemptive strike doctrine. Again, it was the rationale of imminent attack and bran, crass, deceitful attempts to
link Iraq with 9/11 that were offered, not a great vision for spreading democracy at gunpoint.

THE MYTH AND REALITY OF ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER - TAKE 3: ARNOLD'S SCRIPT IS NOW MULTI-COLOR

By: Thomas McKelvey Cleaver

In the movie business, once a script is put into production, additional rewrites are identified by having the changed pages printed on different color paper. The more "multi-hue" the script, the more rewrites there have been; lots of different colors generally denote a project that's in trouble, though no one will ever admit it until the movie tanks on opening weekend.

Right now, Arnold Schwarzenegger's script for turning California Republican has at least four different colors in it - a sign of trouble, whether Der Governator admits it or not.

The California Nurses Association, which took the lead in opposing Arnold over his refusal to enforce the law about nurse staffing levels, and has been Big Boy's most tenacious opponents, has now been joined by the rest of the "special interests" who are bringing a blend of demonstrations and legislative strategy, with the result that Big Boy now has to defend his agenda on multiple fronts.

The Nurses won a big victory in court this past Monday when a judge declared Arnold didn't have the power to set aside the staffing regulations adopted in the legislation. As Richard Holober, Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California put it, "The nurses have shown other unions and other opponents of the governor's policies that when he is wrong, you have to confront him and stick to the issue. And you can beat him."

Arnold's coast-to-coast tour through the checkbooks of the far right ended this past Wednesday night at the Century Plaza Hotel here in Los Angeles, where for $89,200 a couple, "the people of Kaleeforneeya" could obtain a private briefing on the issues from Der Governator himself. More than 1,000 demonstrators from The California Nurses Association, the teacher's unions and firefighters unions were outside on Century Boulevard, with protestors arriving in top hats and tiaras to point out who it was Arnold was meeting with on the inside.

In recent days, Schwarzenegger has been forced to mention the protestors in his speeches, while his audience has had to push past them to get in to see him.

Recent public opinion polls show a significant drop in public support for Schwarzenegger's proposed propositions when mention is made of the $70 million cost of the special election he is forcing through.

At the same time, Lance Olson, general counsel of the California Democratic Party, is representing the watchdog group TheRestofUs.org in a lawsuit to terminate the unlimited campaign contributions Arnold's been raising in contravention of state campaign financing law that decrees any campaign committee controlled by the governor is limited to a $22,300limit per donor. The committee - Citizens to Save California - claims independence, yet works closely with the governor and his staff. The chairman is long-time rightwing anti-tax activist Joel Fox.

In the meanwhile, legislative committees are holding hearings about the governor's "press releases" masquerading as TV news clips, a tactic he borrowed from the White House.

The same day, California Treasurer Phil Angelides launched his campaign for Governor, saying, "Governor Schwarzenegger and I have a different view of the world, two very different visions of what makes society strong." Angelides has already raised about $12.5 million for the effort. Unlike Arnold, who can read his lines with conviction whatever they say, Angelides actually knows what he's talking about when it comes to facing up to the fiscal problems confronting the state.

Schwarzenegger is no longer the only celebrity politician in the fight. In a speech last weekend to the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (a meeting that only cost $350 per person), Warren Beatty put it perfectly when he said of Der Governator: "Arnold: be the action hero I know you can be. If you're looking for something to terminate, terminate your dinners with the brokers of Wall Street. Terminate your dinners with the lobbyists of K Street. Terminate collecting out-of-state right-wing money. Terminate the $70 million special election you want to hold to divert the public's attention away from the budget crisis."

The sad thing is, if Arnold Schwarzenegger had half the courage his action-hero characters have displayed on-screen, he had the political capital to come in and actually change things for the better. Instead, he has displayed the lack of courage one associates with a demagogue who knows his only power is the power to fool the public. He's raised more money in a year than "money machine" Grey Davis raised in three years, and changes his policies weekly depending on which group has contributed how much to his campaign, all the time proclaiming himself an "outsider" who will never be "a politician.

Arnold's about to learn that the Three Rules of Hollywood work in politics, too: Nobody. Knows. Anything. His popularity hasn't dropped yet into free-fall, but his opponents have slowed him down considerably while he scrambles to find the script rewrite that will solve his problems. That's something you're supposed to have accomplished before you greenlight the movie. As in the movie business, we'll all know the answer on Opening Weekend.

JOHN BOLTON'S NOT A LOCK FOR AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS

By: Thomas McKelvey Cleaver

Progressives around the world were dismayed this past week when the president announced the appointment of John Bolton as United States Ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton, who had been Undersecretary of State for Arms Control during the president's first term in office - the man responsible for taking the United States out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and for making nonproliferation negotiations with North Korea and Iran more difficult with his hardline policies - had been thought to have lost out when Rice did not promote him to Deputy Secretary of State. There were even those who thought his "sidelining" might mean that the power of the neocons within the Bush Administration was on the wane. Thus, the sudden announcement - after several weeks of the President and his Secretaries of State and Defense having "played nice" with allies around the world - was definitely a bucket of cold water in the faces of those who thought George W. Bush might become more moderate in his dealing with the world.

As several writers have pointed out, Bolton has been a long-term foe of the United Nations, a perfect example of the old John Birch Society cry, "Get the U.S. out of the United Nations and the United Nations out of the U.S."

In the early 1990s, Bolton stated, "If I were redoing the security council today, I'd have one permanent member because that's the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world."

As Sidney Blumenthal pointed out in The Guardian, "Bolton is an extraordinary combination of political operator and ideologue. He began his career as a cog in the machine of Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina... Bolton is often called a neoconservative, but he is more their ally, implementer and agent. His roots are in Helms's Dixiecrat Republicanism, not the neocons' airy Trotskyism or Straussianism."

Harry Truman's Secretary of State Dean Acheson called the unilateralists and McCarthyites of the early Cold War "primitives." Bolton is the modern version of the "primitives," and he could be properly classified a "neoprimitive." He was Colin Powell's enemy within. In 2001, he forced the U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, destroyed a protocol on enforcing the biological weapons convention, scuttled the nuclear test ban treaty and the UN conference on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. And he was the leading force behind the renunciation of our signature to the 1998 Rome statute creating the International Criminal Court. He described sending his letter notifying the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, of American withdrawal from the treaty as "the happiest moment of my government service".

In 1999, at the outset of American involvement in Kosovo, Bolton managed to make even an idiot like Bill O'Reilly look like a thoughtful commentator when he visited the "The O'Reilly Factor":

O'REILLY: And I find it difficult to stand by and watch another Cambodia, another Rwanda, unfold. And I believe the United States has a responsibility here.

BOLTON: Let me ask you this, Mr. O'Reilly. How many dead Americans is it worth to you to stop the brutality?

O'REILLY: I don't think I would quantify that because...

BOLTON: I think you have to quantify it. I think if you don't answer that question...

O'REILLY: ... I think if you're going to be a superpower...

BOLTON: ... you're ducking the key point that the commander in chief has to decide upon before putting American troops into a combat situation. We are now at war with Serbia. And the president has to be able to justify to himself and to the American people that Americans are about to die, or may well die, for a certain specific American interest.

O'REILLY: ... I do not believe in standing by while people are slaughtered.

BOLTON: ... Our foreign policy should support American interests. Let the rest of the world support the rest of the world's interests.

As Steve Clemons, President of the New America Foundation put it, "This debate about John Bolton is not just about him, or the United Nations -- it is about restoring a sense of integrity and common purpose among the great nations of the world and restoring U.S. leadership after the debacle that preceded the Iraq War."

The Bush Administration knows that Bolton is controversial, to say the least. They moved this past week to try and get the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to fast-track the confirmation process for Bolton. This ran into a roadblock when Senator Richard D. Lugar, Chairman of the Committee, refused to allow the confirmation process to move forward this coming week. With the Senate and House set to go on a two week Spring Recess this coming Friday, March 18, it means the Bolton nomination hearings will not happen before the second week in April at the earliest.

This means there is still time to derail this terrible nomination. Phone calls from voters to the members of the Foreign Relations Committee this past week were responsible for derailing the fast-track strategy the White House was banking on.

Now we need to tell all the members of the Senate that we the people want someone at the United Nations who will actually take steps to improve our relations with the rest of the world, not make them worse. The President doesn't have to nominate a UN true believer. There are any number of Republicans with solid backgrounds who have some skepticism over the operations of the United Nations - and this is not a bad thing - who believe in the value of the organization and the possibilities of improving America's position in the world through our work with the UN.

Call your Senator! E-mail them at senator@yoursenatorsname.senate.gov - let them hear from you.

Call the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Majority Staff at 202-224-4651 and tell them you want to see another Republican nominated to this important position.

We can win this one. Bolton is so far out of the mainstream, so far to the radical right, that even Republicans are worried by this nomination.

Steve Clemons published a sample letter at his blog, The Washington Note which can give good guidance as to the tone to take and the points to make. I am quoting it here in full:

Dear Senator Lugar:

You are the kind of outstanding citizen committed to principled American leadership in the world that our Ambassador to the United Nations should also exemplify.

Many of your fans and those who feel that America must make some credible efforts at rebuilding bridges with parts of the world that have traditionally been friends and allies are hopeful that America will begin demonstrating fresh and revitalized, principled global leadership. President Bush's nomination of John Bolton as Ambassador to the United Nations inflames world opinion and may undermine America's efforts to constructively assist in UN reform efforts.

John Bolton has served in government a long time and deserves a fair hearing -- but that hearing must be fair for those who have serious questions and doubts about his candidacy.

Please do the right thing. The fair and balanced thing to do is give advocates and skeptics a reasonable amount of time to make their case or lodge their concerns.

Inspiration From a Real Hero

by
Ryan Oddey

Although this site is relatively new, my love of politics and country have been in existence for years. As I stated in bio piece in the "About Us" section, the events of September 11, 2001 had such an effect on me that I decided to go back to college, get my degree, and do what I could to try and make things better for as many people as I could.

My interest in 9-11 has caused me to read as much material as I can on the subject, and I recently read 102 Minutes by Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn. The purpose of this piece is not to review this book, although I highly recommend it. I would rather use this time to introduce America to a hero. All too often we throw the term hero around and its meaning can become somewhat diluted. When you hear the story of Frank De Martini you will full appreciate the definition of a hero.

In 102 Minutes there is a picture of Frank, and underneath it a bio. It reads "Frank De Martini, the Port Authority construction manager, worked on the 88th floor of the north tower. He loved the World Trade Center and all its gadgetry ever since he started work as a consultant following the 1993 bombings. After a 1994 project to overhaul the window-washing and maintenance rigs, he took an inspection ride along the side of the building, boarding at the roof, 1,350 feet above the street. On September 11, De Martini helped rescue people on his floor and then led a group that pried open doors on twelve floors along the boundary of the crash zone, rescuing dozens of others."

After the plane hit the north tower, while so many people fled for safety, Frank disregarded his own well-being, and worked his way around the crash area. Frank, along with the help of some others, was able to pry open doors and break through walls, which in the end would directly result in the safe exit for dozens of people who would have otherwise perished. Frank was a rare breed of person, because even as he saved one group, it was not enough. He would seek out other groups of people who were trapped and free them. With death staring down at him and countless others, Frank did not flinch, and through selfless actions he personally kept death at bay for numerous survivors.

In a perfect world, Frank's story would have ended with him escorting the final group of survivors out of the North Floor and he would be able to return home to his family after an unimaginable day. But, as September 11, 2001 showed us, we do not live in a perfect world. Frank De Martini died on 9-11, at the age of 49, when the North Tower collapsed. For those of you that have seen the History Channel's documentary on the World Trade Center, you may remember Frank stating his belief that he felt the towers could withstand the impact of an airliner. That sentiment stayed with Frank until the day he died, as he refused to exit the North Tower, confidant that it would remain standing. His faith in his building, coupled with his selfless behavior, fueled the rescue effort that he led. His mind set saved lives.

When I watched the towers fall on September 11, 2001 I had no idea who Frank De Martini was. All I knew is that people had died, families had been shattered, and a landmark that I had the pleasure of seeing grace the skyline of Manhattan was gone. Yet, when I read the story of Frank De Martini I was both devastated and inspired. I was devastated that a husband, a father, a son, had died in the attacks of September 11th 2001, and yet I was inspired that in his final moments on this planet, he spent his time saving lives. Unlike the firefighters, police officers, and port authority, Frank was not trained in any emergency rescue. Frank was not employed for his ability to save lives. Yet, with all of the people around him fleeing for safety, and all of the carnage in his building, Frank chose to stay and save lives. Frank chose to do what he could to make sure other people could get away from the crash site, and ultimately out of the building prior to its collapse.

There were many heroes on September 11, 2001, but for some reason the story of Frank De Martini seemed especially profound. I am sure we would all like to think that we would have done what Frank did if we ever faced the same horrific situation, and even though we say we would do what Frank did, most of us would not. Most of us would have rushed down those flights of stairs as fast as we could, bursting through the lobby and out on to the street, calling our loved ones as soon as we could just to let them know we made it. Frank De Martini never got to make that phone call, but through his actions, dozens of others were able to call a loved one that day and told them "I made it out." That is what makes Frank De Martini a hero.

Frank De Martini and thousands of other died on Tuesday September 11th. The events of that day changed the skyline of New York City and the fabric of our nation forever. The images of the Twin Towers on fire, and later collapsing will be forever etched in the memories of anyone who saw it unfold, either in person or on television. Yet for me, and others like me, September 11th 2001 was not just the end of thousands of lives, it was the beginning of the rest of my life. I will never cease to stop feeling grateful to be alive, and I will never cease to be inspired by the actions of heroes like Frank De Martini. Although their time on earth is over, we owe it to their memories to make the most out of our lives. Doing so, will forever ensure that heroes like Frank De Martini did not die in vein.

ARNOLD GETS HIS SCRIPT REWRITTEN

By: Thomas McKelvey Cleaver

Last week I commented about Der Governator, that he's only The Hero when the script is written that way. The news is out that there?s a new draft of the movie "Der Governator Reforms California."

This draft of the script has Der Governator's parties being crashed by opponents, forcing Ahnuld The Hero to alter his schedule and duck into his events through the back door, at locations from California to New York City to Washington D.C. He's getting testy with this opposition - A-listers like him aren't supposed to deal with the "below-the-line" folks. (For those not in the know, that?s a Hollywood term for those whose names appear in the credits "below the title", in other words, all the hard workers without whom the movie doesn't get made.)

When he appeared at "21" in New York to meet his $22,300-a-person out-of-state supporters for his "local" reforms here in Kahleeforneeah, Arnold found himself slipping inside through the service entrance while Governor Pataki went in through the front door, to avoid fire-fighters, policemen and nurses yelling "Screw Arnold!" outside.

Inside, San Jose firefighter Jeremy Ray, secretary of Santa Clara Firefighters Local 1171 had reserved a table for dinner. Once there, he slipped in to Big Boy's reception on the floor above and confronted Der Governator over his "reform" of the state retirement system, turning it into a Wall Street-run 401(k) system that the California Attorney General has said will deny pensions to the widows and children of firefighters and policemen who die in the line of duty. According to Ray, "He said 'I'm a friend of the firefighters and would never take anything away from them.' I said 'No, you're not a friend to us, sir. And what you're doing is wrong.'" The NYPD was called to remove the "unruly extra" from Arnold's set. As Ray remembered, "while I was being led away, one of the officers introduced himself and said 'God bless you, brother, we're on the same side. Thanks for doing what you did.'"

When Arnie showed up in Columbus Ohio over the weekend for his Arnold Classic bodybuilding competition, nurses from California marched outside, providing information to passers-by about Der Governator's move to sidestep a state law requiring sufficient hospital nurse staffing to provide proper care for patients.

Arnold isn't used to this. For the past thirty-odd years, he's basked in the adoration of the crowd, whether it was at a Mr. Universe competition, a Hollywood blockbuster opening, or his campaign for Governor in 2003. While speaking before groups who make five-figure individual contributions to sit in the same room with him, he calls the nurses, firefighters and policemen picketing outside "special interests."

Still, 75 of them were waiting for him outside the St. Regis Hotel in Washington, D.C., when he arrived for a "business roundtable" with national corporate donors for his "local" reforms. Der Governator's cavalcade drove up to the side of the building where he walked down a flight of stairs to an underground rear entrance. Still, he couldn?t avoid the demonstrators, who crowded around the stairwell chanting "Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Schwarzenegger's got to go!!"

Arnold Schwarzenegger is not a "new kind of Republican." He shills for the far right just like any other standard-issue Rightie. He's even been caught with his own "Karen Ryan" scandal. For those with short memories, "Karen Ryan" was the actress portraying a news reporter in the stealth campaign by the Department of Health and Human Services to promote Bush's Medicare prescription drug "reform" that was being hit in the "real" news. Here in California, Der Governator spent $1,262 of the taxpayers' money for a "video news release" that supports his proposal to wipe out mandatory meal breaks for hourly workers. An ex-reporter now working in Arnold's publicity office is heard over professionally-shot "B-roll" footage of men and women at work, saying "Many working Californians can benefit from the proposed regulations because the change provides real-life relief." With the text helpfully provided for the local anchor to open and close with, the unwary viewer might think they were watching an actual "news" report. This past Wednesday, it was revealed the Governor?s office has prepared other "video press releases" on the subject of nurse staffing ratios and public employee retirement. Unlike official press releases, however, neither of these have any statement on them that they come from the office of the Governor, either. What we have is more Republican lies, just like the President's.

The good news is, the California press is beginning to clear their heads of Der Governator's Cubano smokescreen and see him for the right-wing shill he is and always has been. The rest of the country needs to wake up to the truth of Arnold. Speaking to his corporate sponsors at "21", he said "As California goes, so goes the nation." He's right. George Bush?s campaign against Middle America?s greatest asset - Social Security - is only the first wave of a far right attempt to cosset the comfortable and roll back the rights won over the past 70 years by the rest of us who work for a living.

WARD CHURCHILL - THE FAR LEFT FRAUD AND CON ARTIST

By: Thomas McKelvey Cleaver

The left needs to back off its knee-jerk defense of the fake 1st Amendment claims and see "Professor" Ward Churchill for the lying, cheating, thieving, morally-corrupt academic and political fraud that he is. This scumball is completely undeserving of the support he's been getting of late from people who should know better.

Let's start with the fact that Ward Churchill is about as much of a "Native American" as I am. Which is: Not Any At All. Churchill has been denounced as an impostor for close to 30 years now for his claim of being "Native American." He began by saying he was a Creek, but when the Creek Nation said they'd never heard of him, he changed that claim to being Keetoowah Cherokee. The Tribal Council of the Keetoowah Cherokee say none of the Cherokee ancestors he lists ever existed. Carol Standing Elk, head of the American Indian Movement of Northern California has said, "We have told the University of Colorado he is not an Indian and he should not be out there indicting Indian people."

That last point is a reference to Churchill's campaign against the "racist" tribal membership rules that prevent his making up his ethnic background without question. Churchill also finds it "racist" that a "Native American artist" has to be able to prove actual membership in a tribe in order to sell their work as Native American art, since he made a good living before that selling his "art." Nowadays, he just commits art fraud by passing off copies of the original work of artists like the late Thomas Mails as his own.

All this leads to the first point of Ward Churchill's career of continuing Academic Fraud.

Churchill has promulgated in his "writing" the lie that the "1/16 Rule" of tribal membership was forced on Native Americans by the U.S. Government when they passed the law breaking up tribal reservations into 160-acre individual parcels in 1887. In fact, there is nothing in the law that defines how one is to be defined as a tribal member, this rule being left to the individual tribes. The rules are "racist" because they prevent Churchill living out his fantasies.

Beyond playing fast and loose with historical fact on this point, Churchill has also promulgated the fraudulent "history" of the U.S. Army's "genocide of the Mandans" in 1837, in which he claims the Army provided blankets infected with smallpox, which he then claims killed a quarter-million Mandans in a government-planned act of genocide. Churchill's "academic citation" of these "facts" is the work of UCLA professor Russell Thornton (who really is a for-real Native American historian). Thornton's own account is completely different from Churchill's ravings and makes no mention of the Army whatsoever. When he was asked about this, Professor Thornton said "If Ward Churchill is citing my work as supporting his, then he has no support at all for what he says."

In other words, folks, Ward Churchill just makes this shit up as he goes along.

The fact Churchill has the position he does at the University of Colorado is further proof of the complete corruption of "the Academy" in the past 30 years. When he applied to CU in 1978 for a position tutoring minority students, he checked off "Native American" on his employment application and Federal affirmative action forms - something that was never verified, but with which he then managed to create an entire career. In 1991, he beat out several actual Native American applicants for a position at the university, teaching Native American Studies despite the fact that two of his competitors held Doctorates in the subject while his academic background is a Master’s Degree in "Communications."

Later that year, the faculty of the CU Communications Department was informed by their incoming chairman Michael Pacanowsky that Ward Churchill had been offered a full professorship at California State University Northridge and that they had to decide whether Churchill should receive tenure in the Communications Department after he was turned down by the Sociology and Political Science Departments. Pacanowsky said that hiring Churchill would be "making a contribution to increasing the cultural diversity on campus." Despite his lack of academic credentials, Churchill was given tenure in the name of academic political correctness.

In fact, no such offer had been made. John Chandler, spokesman for California State University Northridge, has stated "We have full records from that time and we cannot find any evidence of a hiring offer ever being made to Ward Churchill."

So, this scumball's a liar as well as an academic fraud from beginning to end.

He's also a liar and a fraud in the rest of his so-called "resume." What particularly pisses me off is his bullshit claim to be a "Vietnam combat veteran." If all those who claim this status really were, we’d likely have won that war. The truth is - of 1,500,000 who served in Vietnam - maybe 175,000 actually were "Vietnam combat veterans." That's because in the American armed forces at that time, for every grunt in the boonies there were nine others in "support." According to the US Army's records, PFC Churchill did his year in-country as a "light vehicle driver." In other words, he drove a jeep. Back in the rear, with the gear. There was a term for those guys back then: REMF - which stands for "Rear Echelon Mother F---er."

To me, what completely demonstrates his total unreliability is his claim to have come home from the war, become an organizer for Students for a Democratic Society, and to have joined The Weatherman Faction, who he taught to make bombs. I was in SDS back in the days of the scumbag Weathermen, a bunch of upper class radical-leftist morons who should have all died unlamented in the Townhouse explosion in 1970. I personally still hope that "Professor" Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn "get theirs" one of these days for their crimes against the antiwar movement and the left back then.

These people like Ward Churchill made our work harder back then, and they still do so. They weren't worthy of support 35 years ago, and they still aren't today. Unless you think a lying, conniving, thief and third-rate fraudulent con artist is someone you want on your side.

COME TOGETHER, RIGHT NOW, OVER THIS
by
Ryan Oddey

It is rare when a situation arises involving politics that people from both sides of the aisle agree on. In spite of that, I believe that the upcoming situation involving Election Law and how it relates to the Internet will be a cause in which many bloggers from all walks of life will find themselves on the same side. The reason for this rare showing of unity has less to do with politics and more to do with something we all cherish: Freedom.

A Recent Interview by Brad Smith has caused some in the Blogging world to become concerned about the future of the internet. Smith, who is one of the six commissioners on the Federal Elections Commission, has decided that a controversial court decision made in 2002 regarding campaign finance law should be applied to the internet.

The law that was adopted in 2002 pretty much put a limit on media (TV, Radio, Mailing Lists, etc) that is done in conjunction with Political Campaigns. At the time this law was adopted, the FEC voted to 4-2 to exclude the internet from this new form of regulation. However, last Fall U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kelley ruled that the FEC's decision to exclude the internet from these regulations severely undermines the intent of the campaign finance law.

So, now that Kollar-Kelley has made that ruling, lets examine some of the changes Brad Smith has talked about. Smith wants to assign a value to links on personal pages that direct someone towards a politician. He feels that this is important, because if an individual has already contributed the legal maximum amount to a campaign their website would be in violation of campaign finance law.

You may be wondering just how much a website is worth, well, Smith has a plan for calculating that too. Smith says "Design fees, that sort of thing." Granted, I can not totally critique Smith's plan because I do not know the specifics of "that sort of thing" but I do understand a thing about design fees. However, I pose this question, what if you designed your own site, or the site was designed for free?

As for the individual links that bring you to a politicians website, Smith plans on that being quite expensive when he uses the following logic. Consider this:

"Corporations aren't allowed to donate to campaigns. Suppose a corporation devotes 20 minutes of a secretary's time and $30 in postage to sending out letters for an executive. As a result, the campaign raises $35,000. Do we value the violation on the amount of corporate resources actually spent, maybe $40, or the $35,000 actually raised? The commission has usually taken the view that we value it by the amount raised. It's still going to be difficult to value the link, but the value of the link will go up very quickly."

Ok, so how about instead of using a link, we just post website addresses. Should the viewer of the website wish to view any of the web addresses posted, they will need to put the web address into their web browser on their own.

You see, Smith thinks that the judges decision means this:


"The judge's decision is in no way limited to ads. She says that any coordinated activity over the Internet would need to be regulated, as a minimum. The problem with coordinated activity over the Internet is that it will strike, as a minimum, Internet reporting services." So a fine start up website such as www.ThatsAnotherFineMess.com would fall under this category since we read the news and report what we feel is useful information.

We have hope, because the internet currently falls under the press exemption. However, the debate over whether or not the internet should fall under the press exemption is approaching the foreground of this debate.

I believe that the internet is the most open form of media. Average citizens, such as myself and countless others, do not have the pull to have our own section in a news paper or our own talk show on a cable news network. However, we do have the resources to go online and find a way to post our political opinions. Some of us own a website, some of us contribute to a website, while others find a forum where they can engage in political debate. The internet opens people up to a wide range of opinions that they would otherwise not hear. Why are people like Bradley Smith so intent on undoing a good thing?

Yes, both parties take advantage of the internet loophole, but if that is the worst thing that happens I think it should be allowed so average citizens continue to have access to view and voice different opinions. If Smith is able to regulate the internet he will silence countless voices that are a valuable part of the blogging community and the political scene at large.

It does not matter if you are a Democrat, a Republican, or anything else, limiting free speech on the internet, which is what Brad Smith is trying to do, is totally and completely nightmarish. We can't all own a newspaper company, we can't all own a television station, but so many of us own a computer. The internet gives us the forum to spout of our ideals and engage in the discussions that we so cherish. It must be protected.

Let us not forget that the United States does not own the internet. Yes, the government can monitor campaign donations from abroad, but how is someone like Brad Smith going to tell some person in France that they have to shut down their website because it is in violation of United States Election law simply because it has a link to a certain candidate? What is your plan to do when that person in France tells you to buzz off because you don't own the internet? Do you censor him? Do you block American access to all foreign based web sites that contain information about political candidates?

Hmmm, a country that censors all websites based in foreign nations that contain any political information...I've heard of this before.......oh yeah, China, Cuba, North Korea. We won the Cold War Mr. Smith, why must we follow the lead of Communist Nations?

This is a serious problem, and it is perhaps the one thing that most bloggers can agree on. It does not matter what side of the aisle you sit on, I am willing to bet you want to keep the internet free so we can all continue to post our rants, opinions, and any other important information we feel like sharing. With so many of us using the internet to raise public awareness about the issues and share our differing opinions I only have one final question for Brad Smith.

WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM?