obama – the next bill clinton?

I’m glad to see a more accurate description of Obama from the mainstream media. I don’t know why, but it really irritates me when people describe him as far-left.
 
 
The Obama Agenda
Monday 30 June 2008
by: Paul Krugman, The New York Times
 
It’s feeling a lot like 1992 right now. It’s also feeling a lot like 1980. But which parallel is closer? Is Barack Obama going to be a Ronald Reagan of the left, a president who fundamentally changes the country’s direction? Or will he be just another Bill Clinton? Current polls – not horse-race polls, which are notoriously uninformative until later in the campaign, but polls gauging the public mood – are strikingly similar to those in both 1980 and 1992, years in which an overwhelming majority of Americans were dissatisfied with the country’s direction.

So the odds are that this will be a “change” election – which means that it’s very much Mr. Obama’s election to lose. But if he wins, how much change will he actually deliver?

Reagan, for better or worse – I’d say for worse, but that’s another discussion – brought a lot of change. He ran as an unabashed conservative, with a clear ideological agenda. And he had enormous success in getting that agenda implemented. He had his failures, most notably on Social Security, which he tried to dismantle but ended up strengthening. But America at the end of the Reagan years was not the same country it was when he took office.

Bill Clinton also ran as a candidate of change, but it was much less clear what kind of change he was offering. He portrayed himself as someone who transcended the traditional liberal-conservative divide, proposing “a government that offers more empowerment and less entitlement.” The economic plan he announced during the campaign was something of a hodgepodge: higher taxes on the rich, lower taxes for the middle class, public investment in things like high-speed rail, health care reform without specifics.

We all know what happened next. The Clinton administration achieved a number of significant successes, from the revitalization of veterans’ health care and federal emergency management to the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and health insurance for children. But the big picture is summed up by the title of a new book by the historian Sean Wilentz: “The Age of Reagan: A history, 1974-2008.”

So whom does Mr. Obama resemble more? At this point, he’s definitely looking Clintonesque.

Like Mr. Clinton, Mr. Obama portrays himself as transcending traditional divides. Near the end of last week’s “unity” event with Hillary Clinton, he declared that “the choice in this election is not between left or right, it’s not between liberal or conservative, it’s between the past and the future.” Oh-kay.

Mr. Obama’s economic plan also looks remarkably like the Clinton 1992 plan: a mixture of higher taxes on the rich, tax breaks for the middle class and public investment (this time with a focus on alternative energy).

Sometimes the Clinton-Obama echoes are almost scary. During his speech accepting the nomination, Mr. Clinton led the audience in a chant of “We can do it!” Remind you of anything?

Just to be clear, we could – and still might – do a lot worse than a rerun of the Clinton years. But Mr. Obama’s most fervent supporters expect much more.

Progressive activists, in particular, overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama during the Democratic primary even though his policy positions, particularly on health care, were often to the right of his rivals’. In effect, they convinced themselves that he was a transformational figure behind a centrist facade.

They may have had it backward.

Mr. Obama looks even more centrist now than he did before wrapping up the nomination. Most notably, he has outraged many progressives by supporting a wiretapping bill that, among other things, grants immunity to telecom companies for any illegal acts they may have undertaken at the Bush administration’s behest.

The candidate’s defenders argue that he’s just being pragmatic – that he needs to do whatever it takes to win, and win big, so that he has the power to effect major change. But critics argue that by engaging in the same “triangulation and poll-driven politics” he denounced during the primary, Mr. Obama actually hurts his election prospects, because voters prefer candidates who take firm stands.

In any case, what about after the election? The Reagan-Clinton comparison suggests that a candidate who runs on a clear agenda is more likely to achieve fundamental change than a candidate who runs on the promise of change but isn’t too clear about what that change would involve.

Of course, there’s always the possibility that Mr. Obama really is a centrist, after all.

One thing is clear: for Democrats, winning this election should be the easy part. Everything is going their way: sky-high gas prices, a weak economy and a deeply unpopular president. The real question is whether they will take advantage of this once-in-a-generation chance to change the country’s direction. And that’s mainly up to Mr. Obama.

<a href=”http://www.truthout.org/article/the-obama-agenda” target=”_blank”>Link.

obama’s tax increase for the wealthy

Well, it’s a step in the right direction. Hopefully Obama will follow through if he becomes POTUS.
 
 
What Obama means by tax the wealthy
By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: June 28, 2008: 9:52 AM EDT
 
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Most voters are aware that Barack Obama wants to raise taxes on high-income taxpayers if he’s elected president in November.

But what does the Democratic candidate mean by high-income? Who’d be affected and how? While the Obama campaign must still settle on more details about their plans, outlines are starting to emerge.

To start, Obama frequently cites $250,000 as the line between those who would be subject to higher taxes and those who wouldn’t.

Indeed, under Obama’s tax plan, married couples with at least $250,000 in gross income are likely to see their taxes go up if Obama is elected president.

But what about single filers? The line for them would likely be about $200,000, according to an Obama adviser.

Those groups could end up paying anywhere from several thousand dollars to tens of thousands of dollars more to Uncle Sam than they do now, according to estimates from the Tax Policy Center.

From income to Social Security to estates, we take a look at four areas where the high-income set and the very well off may be subject to a bigger tax bill in an Obama administration.

Income taxes
Obama would restore the top two income tax rates to their pre-2001 levels of 36% and 39.6%. Currently they’re 33% and 35%.

Obama’s proposal would also reinstate some limitations on how much of a given deduction or personal exemption high-income taxpayers may take.

However, not everyone in the top two brackets would necessarily be affected by the rate increase. Much depends on whether they’ve been subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) in the past.

You’re supposed to calculate your tax liability under both the regular income tax code and the AMT. If your bill under the AMT is bigger, you must pay that.

The Obama rate increase would certainly narrow the spread between the two – since the amount owed under the regular code would go up. The question is would the amount you owe because of the increase exceed your AMT bill.

“Until the regular tax starts exceeding the [AMT bill], you won’t have an increase,” said John Battaglia, a director in the private client advisors practice of Deloitte. “But if people are deep into AMT, it wouldn’t matter.”

For example, if the rate increase would mean you owe $2,500 more under the regular code, but your AMT bill is normally $5,000 more than your regular bill, you would still pay the AMT.

Payroll taxes
In addition to wages up to $102,000 – the current cap on salarysubject to the payroll tax, which funds Social Security – Obama would also tax amountsover $250,000.

In other words, income between $102,000 and $250,000 would be protected.

Obama’s stated goals are to better fund the Social Security program – which faces a long-term shortfall – and to make the system more progressive. Currently, the vast majority of Americans pay the Social Security tax on 100% of their income because they don’t make more than the $102,000 wage cap. By contrast, very highly paid taxpayers only pay Social Security tax on a portion of their income. People who make $204,000, for example, only pay the tax on 50% of their income.

The rate at which salary is taxed for Social Security is 12.4% (half of which is normally paid by employees and half by their employers).

Obama hasn’t saidwhether the money from wages and salaries over $250,000 would be taxed at the same rate. If it were, the person making $300,000 in gross income – $50,000 above the $250,000 watermark – would pay an additional $3,100 into the system annually (6.2% x $50,000).

We also don’t know whether the benefits promised to the highest income workers would go up as a result of their paying more into the system.

“Those are details that Senator Obama would want to work out on a bipartisan basis with Congress,” an Obama adviser said.

That lack of specificity concerns some tax experts. “If Obama is hinting that those making more than $250,000 would pay a higher payroll tax rate … it would fundamentally change the way Social Security operates and run the risk of making the program look less like social insurance and more like welfare,” Tax Vox blog editor Howard Gleickman wrote for the Tax Policy Center.

Investment income taxes
Long-term capital gains used to be taxed differently than dividends, which were subject to one’s top income tax rate. Under the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, gains and dividends are treated equally. Currently the most one would pay is 15%.

Both rates are scheduled to rise by 2011 – long-term gains to 20% and dividends would once again be taxed a taxpayer’s top income tax rate for dividends.

Obama would continue to treat gains and dividends equally and would keep the current rate in place for everyone except high-income households.

He hasn’t specified how high he’d like to make the rate, but observers expect and Obama himself has virtually said that the new rate likely would fall between 20% and 25%.

Estate tax
Finally, Obama’s proposals to tax wealth are not only defined by income levels.

When it comes to family wealth, for instance, Obama favors maintaining the estate tax, which is scheduled to be repealed in 2010 for one year. But he would limit its reach.

Obama would freeze the estate tax exemption amount at $3.5 million – up from its current $2 million level and the $1 million level it’s set to revert to in 2011. He would also keep the current top rate of 45%, which is below the 55% it is set to revert to in 2011. To top of page

Link.

Five Ways You’re Killing the Planet
The everyday actions that are wrecking the environment, and how you can quit
By Jason Daley Posted 6.11.08 at 1:43 pm
 

Leaving Your Computer On
Standby power, also known as vampire power, the juice used by all those DVD player clocks, coffeepot LEDs and cellphone chargers—accounts for more than 5 percent of all residential electricity use in the U.S., a tab that costs us an estimated $4 billion per year and pumps millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Solution? Turn off your computer at night, unplug your iPod when it’s done charging, or put those gadgets on a power strip for one-touch turn-off.
 
Jetting to Grandma’s House
The worst thing about your next flight won’t be getting stuck in the middle seat; it’s the carbon emissions your kerosene-guzzling jet will be producing. Aviation currently accounts for about 1 percent of carbon emissions in the world, but over the next 50 years—with China and India getting into the global-tourism game—flying will jump to 4 percent or more, and further contribute to ozone depletion and noise pollution. The solution for now? Try to keep your flights to a minimum.
 
Upgrading Your iPhone
What happens when you toss your old cellphone or computer monitor in the Dumpster? First, you’re contributing toxins like mercury, lead and cadmium into the environment. By some estimates, there are 500 million discarded cellphones in the U.S. alone. Second, you’re wasting precious resources: Electronics contain small amounts of precious metals like gold, silver and coltan, all of which can be reclaimed to reduce often environmentally destructive mining operations. What can you do? Plan your electronics purchases wisely—think about a new phone every three or four years, instead of every six months—and always drop your e-waste off at a recycling center.
 
Living in the ‘Burbs
Your little house may be cute, but under its toxic vinyl siding, it’s an environmental monster. Add the average 25-minute daily commute an American suburbanite makes to the emissions from a lawnmower (one hour of pushing is equivalent to 100 miles of driving), the toxic chemicals put on lawns, and the loss of green space and farmland created by sprawl, and your enviro-mojo drops pretty low. Compare that with an urban condo where you can bike to work or take mass transit and skip the lawn care, and downtown begins to seem a little rosier.
 
Buying Plastic Everything
It’s been said that in 1,000 years, when archaeologists dig down to the 20th and 21st centuries, they’ll deem our time the Plastic Age. The ubiquitous petroleum-based material will be our most prominent artifact, mainly because the stuff doesn’t biodegrade. Besides just making a mess that won’t go away, some plastics are known to leak hormone-disrupting chemicals and other toxins. Until bioplastics—made from vegetable starches and cellulose—become viable, opt for glass containers when you can, and take a reusable bag to the grocery store.
 
Link.

moratorium on dangerous solar energy

The administration is pushing for increased drilling and mining on federally owned lands but wants to put a hold on solar facilities for fear of unknown environmental impacts. What? Welcome to bizarro world.
 
 
Citing Need for Assessments, U.S. Freezes Solar Energy Projects
By DAN FROSCH
June 27, 2008
 
DENVER — Faced with a surge in the number of proposed solar power plants, the federal government has placed a moratorium on new solar projects on public land until it studies their environmental impact, which is expected to take about two years.

The Bureau of Land Management says an extensive environmental study is needed to determine how large solar plants might affect millions of acres it oversees in six Western states — Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah.

But the decision to freeze new solar proposals temporarily, reached late last month, has caused widespread concern in the alternative-energy industry, as fledgling solar companies must wait to see if they can realize their hopes of harnessing power from swaths of sun-baked public land, just as the demand for viable alternative energy is accelerating.

“It doesn’t make any sense,” said Holly Gordon, vice president for legislative and regulatory affairs for Ausra, a solar thermal energy company in Palo Alto, Calif. “The Bureau of Land Management land has some of the best solar resources in the world. This could completely stunt the growth of the industry.”

Much of the 119 million surface acres of federally administered land in the West is ideal for solar energy, particularly in Arizona, Nevada and Southern California, where sunlight drenches vast, flat desert tracts.

Galvanized by the national demand for clean energy development, solar companies have filed more than 130 proposals with the Bureau of Land Management since 2005. They center on the companies’ desires to lease public land to build solar plants and then sell the energy to utilities.

According to the bureau, the applications, which cover more than one million acres, are for projects that have the potential to power more than 20 million homes.

All involve two types of solar plants, concentrating and photovoltaic. Concentrating solar plants use mirrors to direct sunlight toward a synthetic fluid, which powers a steam turbine that produces electricity. Photovoltaic plants use solar panels to convert sunlight into electric energy.

Much progress has been made in the development of both types of solar technology in the last few years. Photovoltaic solar projects grew by 48 percent in 2007 compared with 2006. Eleven concentrating solar plants are operational in the United States, and 20 are in various stages of planning or permitting, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.

The manager of the Bureau of Land Management’s environmental impact study, Linda Resseguie, said that many factors must be considered when deciding whether to allow solar projects on the scale being proposed, among them the impact of construction and transmission lines on native vegetation and wildlife. In California, for example, solar developers often hire environmental experts to assess the effects of construction on the desert tortoise and Mojave ground squirrel.

Water use can be a factor as well, especially in the parched areas where virtually all of the proposed plants would be built. Concentrating solar plants may require water to condense the steam used to power the turbine.

“Reclamation is another big issue,” Ms. Resseguie said. “These plants potentially have a 20- to 30-year life span. How to restore that land is a big question for us.”

Another benefit of the study will be a single set of environmental criteria to weigh future solar proposals, which will ultimately speed the application process, said the assistant Interior Department secretary for land and minerals management, C. Stephen Allred. The land agency’s manager of energy policy, Ray Brady, said the moratorium on new applications was necessary to “ensure that we are doing an adequate level of analysis of the impacts.”

In the meantime, bureau officials emphasized, they will continue processing the more than 130 applications received before May 29, measuring each one’s environmental impact.

While proponents of solar energy agree on the need for a sweeping environmental study, many believe that the freeze is unwarranted. Some, like Ms. Gordon, whose company has two pending proposals for solar plants on public land, say small solar energy businesses could suffer if they are forced to turn to more expensive private land for development.

The industry is already concerned over the fate of federal solar investment tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of the year unless Congress renews them. The moratorium, combined with an end to tax credits, would deal a double blow to an industry that, solar advocates say, has experienced significant growth without major environmental problems.

“The problem is that this is a very young industry, and the majority of us that are involved are young, struggling, hungry companies,” said Lee Wallach of Solel, a solar power company based in California that has filed numerous applications to build on public land and was considering filing more in the next two years. “This is a setback.”

At a public hearing in Golden, Colo., on Monday, one of a series by the Bureau of Land Management across the West, reaction to the moratorium was mixed.

Alex Daue, an outreach coordinator for the Wilderness Society, an environmental conservation group, praised the government for assessing the implications of large-scale solar development.

Others warned the bureau against becoming mired in its own bureaucratic processes on solar energy, while parts of the West are already humming with new oil and gas development.

Craig Cox, the executive director of the Interwest Energy Alliance, a renewable energy trade group, said he worried that the freeze would “throw a monkey wrench” into the solar energy industry at precisely the wrong time.

“I think it’s good to have a plan,” Mr. Cox said, “but I don’t think we need to stop development in its tracks.”
Link.

george carlin, rest in peace

The comic genius George Carlin passed away on Sunday. He was 71 years old.
 

 
 
Here’s some of his great work.
 
Seven Words

 
We Like War

 
The American Dream

 
Religion Is Bullshit

al needs to take a page from ed

Al Gore’s house averages more than 18,000 kilowatt-hours a month! What the hell is he doing in there? Growing weed for the entire state of Tennessee? Most people don’t use 18,000 kWh a year. Al needs to watch “Living With Ed” and bone up on his environmentalism. If you combine his home electricity usage with the energy he’s burned up flying all around the world talking about “An Inconvenient Truth”, Al Gore has probably done more to promote global warming than prevent global warming.
 
 
Al Gore’s electricity bill goes through the (insulated) roof
By Tom Leonard in New York
19/06/2008

Environment campaigner Al Gore is using more electricity than ever despite pledging to cut consumption more than a year ago, a libertarian research group claims.

According to the Tennessee Centre for Policy Research, the annual electricity usage at the former US Vice President’s large home in Nashville has risen by 10 per cent.

Mr Gore’s environmental activism inspired the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth.

But the TCPR branded him a “hypocrite” in February 2007 after discovering that his eight-bathroom house in the Tennessee city consumed nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity in the previous year – more than 20 times the national average.

Mr Gore responded by saying that he was in the process of giving the house a major energy-efficient makeover, fitting solar panels, low energy lightbulbs, and a geothermal heating and cooling system.

However, the TPCR has got hold of his electricity bill again, this time comparing electricity consumption between the 12 months before June 2007, when it says he installed his new technology, and the year since then.

It says the figures show the Gore residence uses an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations.

By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Drew Johnson, the TCPR’s president, said: “A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home.”

A spokesman for Mr Gore disputed the claims, saying his total utility bills had gone down by 40 per cent since the “green” refit, much of that down to the new heating system.

Explaining the electricity consumption, she said the three-year renovation of the house wasn’t finished until November so it was too early to draw a before-and-after comparison.

She also stressed that the Gores participate in a local “green power switch” programme which allows them to buy electricity from renewable resources such as wind power and methane gas.

Link.

wouldn’t this be something?

When McCain Drops Out
Posted June 15, 2008 | 09:03 PM (EST)
by Steve Rosenbaum
 
When the Republicans choose their candidate on September 4th, there is a very real chance that they could throw the election into an unexpected chaos as they pull a genuine September Surprise.

I think there is every reason to believe John McCain won’t be the nominee. Ok, let me say that again. McCain will not be the Republican candidate in November.

Here’s how it could happen:

At some point in mid August, John McCain will announce that he has decided that he can not accept his party’s nomination for president. The reason will be health-related, and that may turn out to be the truth. Anyone who’s seen him on stage these days knows he looks like he’s about to keel over. And anyone who’s been on a presidential campaign knows the physical demands are grueling and can be a challenge for a young man.

But excuses or facts hardly matters. He won’t be accepting his party’s nomination.

The reasons are simple. He can’t win. Now that Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee — the polls all show that McCain’s pro-war stance and Bush endorsement make him a lost cause in November. That combined with soft stand on litmus test conservative issues make him an unpopular candidate among the base. I know some Democrats that think the Republicans are planning to let McCain lose and ’sit this one out’ so that they can hang the democrats with a bad economy and a war that is a morass. But that just isn’t how they play. They play to win every hand — think about 2000 with a popular Democratic president and good economy and a solid VP running for president. Why did they put up Bush? And why did they fight so hard? Because, you don’t ever throw a game. And they’re not going to throw this one.

McCain won’t be the nominee.

By August, they’ll have done something to try and pick away at Obama’s popularity. They’ll emphasize race, or whatever they can to get him to appear less than perfect. Then, they’ll bring out of the woodwork a surprise candidate who can shift the story fast. With just two months before the election — the new candidate will have little time to be ‘vetted’ but will be shiny and new, and will get a lot of media attention as Obama’s newness will have become — by then — tarnished or at least no longer the surprise that it has been as he unseated Hillary.

So, who will be the Republican candidate that faces Obama in the fall?

I’ve spoken to a number of friends who — when presented with this set of facts respond: “but they don’t have anybody else.” That’s simply not the case.

Joe Trippi, campaign consultant and most notably Howard Dean’s campaign manager, said of McCain dropping out: “While crazy, this may be the best shot they have.”

There are a whole list of Republicans who in many ways are more likely to energize the Republican base. One thing is certain — there are candidates that will play to the core issues in ways that McCain simply can’t.

Here’s a list of names. Some you know, some you don’t. But each of them knows their name is in play. Among them –

Condoleezza Rice (Secretary of State)
Colin Powell (fmr Sec. of State)
Marilyn Musgrave (Colorado Congresswoman)
Mitt Romney (fmr Massachusetts Governor)
Mike Huckabee (fmr Governor of Arkansas)
Charlie Crist (Florida Governor)
Tim Pawlenty (Minnesota Governor)
Bobby Jindal (Louisiana Governor)
Mark Sanford: (Governor of South Carolina)
John Thune (Senator from South Dakota)
Dick Lugar (Senator from Indiana)
Chuck Hagel (Senator from Nebraska)
MIchael Bloomberg (NYC Mayor)

Ok, go ahead knock them down. One by one. See if you can really remove ALL these names from a list of candidates that are more likely to give Obama a run for his money. They’ll come on the scene late, with a press corps that is looking for a horse race and a new story. Obama’s frontrunner status will be upset, and there will be a set of variables that need to be calculated — and tested against a weary electorate.

Is this supposition? Sure, but one grounded with enough history and observation to take it beyond conjecture and into the realm of the possible.

So — before the Democrats go and game out how to beat McCain, it may be worth thinking about what happens when he says he won’t accept the nomination. For the Republicans, a wide open convention would be both good theater and good politics.

Link.

long overdue call for impeachment ignored

Funny, but I don’t remember the mainstream media reporting on this. Yet, during the lead up to Bill Clinton’s impeachment, that’s all they talked about. So Clinton’s extramarital sex is considered news, but Dubya’s trashing of the Constitution and lies leading the death of hundreds of thousands aren’t. That’s some liberal media.
 
 
Kucinich introduces Bush impeachment resolution
Posted by Sabrina Eaton June 09, 2008 19:35PM

Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich took to the House of Representatives floor on Monday evening to introduce a 35-count resolution to impeach President George W. Bush.

Kucinich claimed Bush “fraudulently” justified the war on Iraq and misled “the American people and members of Congress to believe Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction so as to manufacture a false case for war.”

“President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office,” Kucinich said.

Kucinich said in January that he planned to launch an impeachment effort against Bush, but delayed his effort after meeting with members of the House Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Commitee hasn’t acted on a bid Kucinich launched last year to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney.

Link.

nader – the real candidate for change

Be sure to check out the Nader-Gonzalez in ‘08 website.
 
 
Choice In Nov – Nader Vs
Twiddle Dee Or Twiddle Dum
By Stephen Lendman
6-4-8

Each election cycle, hope springs eternal. Candidates promise change and voters buy it. Intelligent ones. People who know better or should. The current campaign highlights it. A surge is building for Obama, not for what he is. For what people think or hope he is – a populist, progressive, man of the people, a new course for America.

After the final June 3 primaries and “rush of superdelegates,” according to The New York Times, they’re stuck with him. The Times reports that he crossed “over the threshold (to) the 2118 delegates needed to be nominated….” Obama marked the occasion as his chance to “bring a new and better day to America (as) the ‘Democratic’ nominee for president of the United States of America.”

It’s not how John Pilger sees him. In a recent article, he calls him America’s “great liberal hope.” He compares his campaign to Bobby Kennedy’s in 1968 and says: “Both offer a false hope that they can bring peace and racial harmony to all Americans.” Kennedy spoke of “return(ing) government to the people” and giving “dignity and justice” to the oppressed. “Obama is his echo” with familiar promises of change, charting a new course, sweeping government reforms, addressing people needs, and “ensur(ing) that the hopes and concerns of average Americans speak louder in Washington than the hallway whispers of high-priced lobbyists.”

He claims to be an up from the grassroots activist. In fact, he cashed in on opportunism all the way – to the Illinois Senate in 1996. Then after failing to win a US House seat, it was up a notch to the Senate in 2005 after his November 2004 election. He promised hope but delivered betrayal. He’s beholden to power and doesn’t relate well to ordinary constituents who backed him, including his black community base.

If he’s nominated and wins in November, Marc Crispin Miller’s “Fooled Again” will apply but in this case to promises made, then broken. Miller’s book refers to the stolen 2004 presidential election. Kerry won big, Bush remained president, Kerry admitted to the author he knew he’d been had, then disavowed he ever said it in reverse “profile of courage” fashion.

An Obama victory will go Lincoln one better. It’ll prove that the electorate can be fooled “all of the time” – at least enough of them to matter. And that leaves out election fraud in an age when:

– candidates are pre-selected;

– big money owns them;

– independents are shut out;

– the media ignore them;

– they keep people uninformed;

– issues aren’t addressed;

– voter disenfranchisement is rife;

– machines do our voting;

– losers are declared winners; and

– not just for president. It’s democracy American-style, a long-standing tradition, and Chicagoans know it well. They remember an earlier mayor urging people to “vote early and often.” They also recall the pol who “want(ed) to be buried in Chicago (when he died) so (he could) stay active in politics.”

In an age of technological wonders, why not. The Democrat machine is so entrenched, it hasn’t had real opposition since Republican mayor “Big Bill” Thompson lost to Democrat Anton Cermak in 1931. And the Daleys (father and son) practically own the office it’s controlled for 40 of the last 53 years with no visible contender in sight and a new generation upcoming.

On the national level, it’s just as bad – a one party state according to Gore Vidal: the Property or Monied Party with two wings. Ralph Nader calls them a “two-party (twiddle dee v. twiddle dum) dictatorship.” So do others, yet most people buy the rhetoric and ignore the evidence. The criminal class in Washington is bipartisan. Democrats are interchangeable with Republicans. Differences between them are minor. Not a dime’s worth to matter. Whoever wins in November, the outcome is certain. Voters again will lose. They’ll get the best democracy money can buy but none of it earmarked for them.

Wars of aggression won’t end. Repressive laws won’t be repealed. Corruption will stay deeply embedded. Privatizing everything will be de rigueur. Monied interests will be hugely rewarded. Militarizing and annexing the continent will go forward. Voter interests will go largely unaddressed. And promises made will again prove empty. Here’s a sampling from the Nader-Gonzales ‘08 web site. It mentions “Twelve Issues that Matter for 2008,” where the candidates stand on them, and Nader, Obama/Clinton and McCain columns showing “on” or “off” the table:

– National health insurance: Nader on; the others off; Nader favors a single-payer, government-funded, “private delivery, free choice of hospital and doctor, public insurance system;” the need is critical at a time health care costs are soaring; many can’t afford them; millions are uninsured; millions more underinsured; and Democrats and Republicans are dismissive and beholden to providers that fund them;

– Wasteful military spending: Nader on; the others off; America spends more on defense and security than all other nations combined – a conservatively estimated annual $1.1 trillion with all military, homeland security, veterans, NASA, debt service and miscellaneous related allocations included at a time the country has no visible enemies; it threatens world security and the nation by heading it for fiscal insolvency or worse;

– No to nuclear power and yes to solar: Nader on; the others off; Nader opposes Big Oil subsidies and ones for nuclear, electric, coal mining and biofuel interests; he advocates a sustainable energy policy that includes renewables like wind and solar;

– Corporate crime and welfare: Nader on; the others off; the issue – hundreds of billions to corporate coffers; taxpayers fund them; hundreds of thousands “injured and sickened each year by preventable corporate-bred violence;” unsafe products; medical negligence; harmful pollution; public corruption and financial fraud; politicians ignore it; so will the three leading contenders; ordinary people are acutely affected;

– Open presidential debates: Nader on; the others off; independents are shut out; free, fair, and open elections aren’t possible; real democracy is denied; big money assures it; the criminal class is empowered; and people are left out;

– A carbon pollution tax: Nader on; the others off; he fears the planet is overheating; calls the danger great; greenhouse gases must be curbed; and making them more expensive is how;

– Changing Middle East policy; ending two illegal wars; Palestinian repression as well: Nader on; the others off; he proposes rapidly withdrawing troops from Iraq; setting a six month timetable; resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict equitably; ending the Gaza siege; supporting a two-state solution; and being forthrightly committed to Middle East peace;

– Impeaching Bush/Cheney: Nader on, the others off; he cites constitutional law experts saying the president and vice-president are guilty of at least “five categories” of “high crimes and misdemeanors;” they should be impeached and removed from office; Congress is responsible; failing to act affronts the Constitution, international law and citizenry;

– Repealing anti-labor Taft-Hartley law: Nader on; the others off; it harmed workers for 60 years; it undermined the landmark Wagner Act of 1935 that guaranteed labor the right to bargain collectively on equal terms with management for the first time ever; those rights no longer exist; restoring them is essential;

– Enacting a Wall Street securities speculation tax: Nader on; the others off; speculation is rampant; multi-trillions of dollars are involved; public welfare is harmed; instability increased; the economy damaged; and “free market” deregulation allows it; it favors wealth over people;

– Ending ballot access abstructionism: Nader on; the others off; he favors “one federal standard for federal ballot access” in all states; it must be simple and fair to all candidates; efforts to exclude independents must be stopped; current laws obstruct democratic governance; they further disenfranchise voters; and

– Ending corporate personhood; the Supreme Court granted it in 1886; it gave corporations the same constitutional rights as people and allowed them to grow to their present size and dominance: Nader on; the others off.

Nader’s site states that “these twelve issues represent the tip of the political iceberg.” But they show how big money controls both parties. Without change, democratic governance is impossible, and that, for Nader (in a May 31 Wall Street Journal interview), is today’s “central” political issue – “the domination of corporations over our elections, and over so many things where commercial values used to be verboten -commercializing childhood….universities (nearly everything). What’s happened in the last 25 years is an overwhelming swarm of commercial supremacy (and) Obama has bought into that.”
 
Obama’s Record – The Measure of the Man

He preaches change but supports the status quo. He’s beholden to power as a stealth DLC member that’s essential for any Democrat aspirant. It makes him gallingly disingenuous, deceitful to voters, and “safe” for corporate supporters who back him. He says individual donors supply most of his funding, that he gets none of it from lobbyists, and that they won’t crowd out working Americans if he’s elected.

In fact, big money owns him. He raises over $1 million a day. Wall Street lords love him. So do corporate law firms; other finance, insurance and real estate interests; the health industry; communications and electronics firms; various other businesses; and the Center for Responsive Politics reports that his top five donors are corporate lobbyists – the same ones he claims to take no money from.

He preaches opposition to NAFTA and wants it renegotiated. It’s a “charade” says Nader. “There’s no way he’ll touch NAFTA or WTO.” His health care plan puts insurance companies in charge and lets Big Pharma price-gouge consumers. He’s beholden to corporate interests. “If he wins, his appointments will give “lobbies and PACs (what they) want.” He knows how Washington works; was fully briefed to be sure; and he “made his peace with that.” He’s a political animal like the others. Big money is comforted, and why not. No one gets top Washington jobs unless they’re “safe.” For president, it’s practically a blood oath, and Obama qualifies.

Nader dissects his record. He’s party line all the way, not a “transforming leader,” and his running mate, Matt Gonzales, goes further. He calls his voting record “uninspired.” Appalling would be more descriptive. While still in the Illinois legislature, he opposed the Iraq war. Then as a 2004 US Senate candidate, he switched and claimed “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s….” When elected, he proved it. He supported every defense budget and war supplemental and as president will “expand and modernize the military.” He voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her falsifying justification for war. There’s more. He:

– supports Homeland Security funding; like the Patriot Act, it centralizes unprecendented military and law enforcement authority under the executive; it subverts constitutional rights and furthers global dominance in the name of “national security;” it created the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) that functions like a national Gestapo;

– backed reauthorizing the Patriot Act in July 2005 with its police state provisions;

– campaigned in 2006 for Joe Lieberman against anti-war candidate Ned Lamont;

– supports permanent occupation of Iraq; stops just short of saying it; refuses to back a timetable for withdrawal; and wants to add 100,000 combat troops to the military;

– caved to Israeli Lobby pressure; receptive to attacking Iran, removing Hugo Chavez, but says he’ll talk to them first; then maybe not; he’s double standard on most issues – rhetoric to voters; assurances to backers;

– in a May 23 speech, showed deference to Miami’s Cuban exile community; one source described him as “electrifying;” a year ago he supported ending the embargo; no longer unless Cuba becomes a willing client state;

– voted with Republicans for the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA); it gives federal courts jurisdiction over fairer state ones for many class-action lawsuits over $5 million; corporations wanted it; Obama obliged;

– equivocates on controversial issues like “No Child Left Behind;” it’s a corporate scheme to privatize education and end a 373 year tradition; he says the law “demoralizes our teachers (but) the goals of this law were the right ones” – translation: he supports ending public education;

– opposed an amendment capping credit card interest rates at 30%; it was wholly inadequate but would have set a precedent to lower them further;

– acted so much like Republicans, he’s one of them on most issues:

– supporting medical providers in wrongful injury cases;

– letting mining companies strip mine everything; practically steal government lands to do it; and cheat taxpayers out of public revenues;

– voted for the Bush administration’s 2005 Energy Policy Act in spite of criticizing it in campaign rhetoric; it was drafted in secret; provides huge industry subsidies; $6 billion to Big Oil and Gas; and a cornucopia of other industry handouts;

– backs nuclear power; loose industry regulation; $12 billion in subsidies; and numerous other benefits to promote a dangerous technology;

– harmful biofuels production and other agribusiness interests, including multi-billion dollar subsidies;

– opposes universal single-payer national health care, the hundreds of billions it would save, and the huge need for it among tens of millions of uninsured and underinsured;

– claims opposition to NAFTA, but campaigned in 2004 for more deals like it;

– voted against a 2005 Commerce Appropriations Bill amendment; it would have disfavored offshoring jobs by stopping companies doing business abroad from denying workers organizing rights, minimum wages, and other protections;

– assured AIPAC he’s uncompromisingly pro-Israel; supports continued annual funding; and backed off from earlier promises about a just end to the conflict;

– supports the death penalty and brutish prison-industrial complex; it affects his people mostly in the world’s largest gulag;

– voted for repressive immigration legislation; it enhances border security; (selectively) penalizes employers; deploys National Guard troops to the border; and imprisons and deports undocumented workers without due process;

– voted to confirm Robert Gates as Defense Secretary, John Negroponte as Director of National Intelligence, and Michael Chertoff as Secretary of Homeland Security – a deplorable roguish threesome;

– voted against the Military Commissions Act of 2006 but supports kangaroo court military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees;

– appointed billionaire Penny Pritzker as his campaign finance chairperson; she and her family were involved in predatory lending schemes, including subprime ones; she also served on the Board of the failed Pritzker family-owned Superior Bank in Hinsdale, IL; because of poor lending practices, sloppy bookkeeping and likely fraud, it cost the FDIC $700 million and depositors $65 million;

– equivocates but his rhetoric and body language are clear; he supports the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (S. 1959); it’s called the “thought crimes” act; it passed the House overwhelmingly last October and awaits final resolution in the Senate;

– firmly opposes impeaching Bush and Cheney, and

– on June 1 matched John Kerry with his own reverse “profile of courage” act; he resigned from Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ; it followed “controversy” over Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s nobility; he spoke truths too “uncomfortable” for Obama to embrace; he demurred at first and now is firm; political opportunism outweighs righteousness as prime time campaign 2008 approaches;

This is the same JFK/RFK incarnate, a fresh new face, the “great liberal hope,” the smooth-talking campaigner who understands who butters his bread. The same goes for Clinton and McCain. Never for Nader, and it’s why he’s disdained. He’s beholden to people, not entrenched interests; the rarest of political candidates – an anti-politician who says what he means and means what he says and has lifetime achievements to prove it. From his web site:

– one of the 20th century’s 100 Most Influential Americans according to Time magazine;

– over four decades of public service; organized millions of citizens; and formed over 100 public interest groups;

– from his 1965 “Unsafe at Any Speed” book (the first of many plus numerous articles), he helped “create a framework of laws, regulatory agencies, and federal standards that have improved the quality of life for two generations of Americans;”

– he was instrumental in enacting OSHA, the EPA, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Safe Drinking Water Act;

– in 1969, he founded the Center for Study of Responsive Law; staffed mostly by students, they became known as “Nader’s Raiders” – activists on numerous consumer issues;

– he also founded the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), Center for Auto Safety, Public Citizen, Clean Water Action Project, Disability Rights Center, Pension Rights Center, Project for Corporate Responsibility, and Multinational Monitor on corporate practices internationally;

– for the last decade, he’s been in three presidential races for a common purpose – to empower people over privilege; and

– his achievements are impressive – safer cars, healthier food, cleaner air and water, and safer work environments; yet he’s only scratched the surface and at age 74 keeps working for the public interest and social justice.

He’s what everyone in government should be, but few ever are. It’s why he’s shut out, largely ignored, even insulted like the Journal did on May 31. Disdainfully, it called him a “spoiler” despite its half opinion page interview – but for its low readership Saturday edition with a disparaging dour (somewhat threatening) image to highlight it.

He’s denied participation in presidential debates, and in 2000 was threatened with arrest and expelled from the grounds for even showing up. He’s kept off ballots, and in 2004 filed suit. He charged the DNC with conspiring to keep him from taking votes from John Kerry and trying to bankrupt his campaign by suing to deny him ballot entry in 18 states. It’s how independent candidates are treated when they’re prominent figures like Nader. It reflects the sorry state of democracy and tyranny of a “two-party dictatorship;” of money over people; of empowered interests over public service; of the common good nowhere in sight. It’s a process begging for change, the heart of Nader’s activism, and reason he’s running – to spread the word at the most perilous time in world history. If not here, where? If not now, when? If not him or others like him, who?
 
 
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. Programs are archived for easy listening.

Link.

who cares what tiger woods thinks?

“I don’t think anyone really watches hockey anymore.” – Tiger Woods
 
Hockey fans shouldn’t care what a prima donna golfer has to say about their beloved sport. Sure, hockey may not have the numbers that other sports such as American football and baseball or pseudo-sports such as auto racing and golf do. Does that mean that hockey isn’t an exciting and great sport? Of course not. More likely, it means a lot of people haven’t been exposed to hockey or don’t understand it. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve heard non-fans complain about not understanding what’s going on in a game, be it a hockey, football (soccer), or American football game. Once they begin to grasp the basics, their appreciation for that particular sport grows. One of the problems for hockey is that most people have never played the sport. If you took physical education in school, you’ve played baseball, American football, basketball, football, and maybe even golf. How many schools offer hockey in phys. ed.? Very few, if any. Why? Because it requires a skill that the vast majority of people do not possess – skating on ice. If you can’t skate, you can’t play. Simple as that. What skill is required for those other sports? Running. Well, except golf. You only need to know how to stand. Walking is optional.
 
 
Tiger Woods, ambassador of sports (except for hockey)
By Greg Wyshynski
Tuesday, Jun 3, 2008 11:06 am EDT

“I don’t think anyone really watches hockey anymore.” – Tiger Woods

Allow us, for a moment, to point out the subtle difference between hockey legend Wayne Gretzky and golf superstar Tiger Woods, pictured here with an even bigger icon, Diamond David Lee Roth. Gretzky was asked in a press conference back in March about Woods, and said that he never thought he’d see an athlete dominate like Michael Jordan did — until Tiger hit his stride.

“He’s the greatest athlete I’ve ever seen,” he said. And when pressed by a cynical reporter that golfers may not exactly fit the mold of an athlete like, say, even the most physically maligned hockey player does, Gretzky rushed to the defense of an entire sport whose participants range from senior citizens on a Saturday morning in South Florida to children trying to get a ball into a clown’s mouth. “You ever tried to golf? You better be a good athlete if you try to golf.”

How does Tiger choose to repay that respect, during the NHL’s moment in the spotlight?

“I don’t think anyone really watches hockey anymore.”

The full quote came from a news conference at Oakland Hills Country Club in Michigan yesterday, where Tiger appeared via satellite. He was asked his thoughts about Game 5 of the Stanley Cup finals. He chuckled, and then answered:

“I don’t really care,” he said with an impish smile. “It’s all about the Dodgers. I don’t think anyone really watches hockey anymore.”

What’s rather amusing is that this wasn’t a hard-hitting question from a Detroit sports reporter; it was a softball lobbed by Julius Mason, the PGA of America’s senior director of communications. When it appeared Tiger would be less than gracious to the sport currently capturing the imagination of a place called Hockeytown, Mason tried to end the answer by saying Woods was “politically correct as always and that’s what we …” before Tiger added his candid assessment of hockey’s popularity.

Not even PR flackery could curb Tiger’s hunger to diss the game.

The NHL addressed his comments in a general way. Our first inclination was to label this as some clever NIKE brainwashing: Convincing one of its biggest brand names to ignore how awesome hockey really is in order to go after the NHL and Reebok. But wouldn’t the EA Sports brainwashing counteract that?

Perhaps Tiger is still bitter about the demise of the All-Star Café with Gretzky.

The bottom line is that Tiger Woods downgraded a sport that’s been good to him, from charity appearances at golf tournaments to fans asking about when “hockey’s Tiger Woods” will arrive. As they say among champions: Act like you’ve been there, Tiger. You’re already the guy who gets bigger headlines for not playing in a tournament than the NHL gets for playing an all-star game. No need to rub it in.

As for you, Gretzky: Time to get Tiger in the arena for a playoff game, so the puckhead conversion can begin and we can put this all behind us.

Link.