by Real_PHV_Mentarch | 8/31/2008 01:17:00 PM
Last year, I wrote the following concerning President G.W. Bush and his seeming never-ending quest for absolute dictatorial powers (emphasis added):




Let us fast-forward to today and focus on the following recent news items:

A) President G.W. Bush considers himself not just the Commander-in-Chief , the Decider and the Decision-Maker anymore, but also simply the Commander Guy;

B) The Bush administration has stipulated that the president had the constitutional authority to decide for himself whether to conduct surveillance without warrants and therefore does not need the consent of Congress to do so;

C) This is in line with the fact that President G.W. Bush has brushed aside hundreds of laws already with his signing statements;

D) Congress has already put in the books the Patriot Act and the Military Commission’s Act, both giving the President the power to deal effectively with America’s enemies (powers which include looser surveillance restrictions, indefinite detentions, use of torture, loss of habeas corpus, etc.);

E) President G.W. Bush, in defense of his veto of an Iraq war spending plan passed by the Democratic-led Congress that would have forced him to begin pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, sent the message to Congress that he considered the legislation unconstitutional because it infringed on his presidential powers;

and F) Meanwhile, cries continue to clamor for the need of a Unitary Executive, of a strong and powerful leader who must be above the quaint laws of the republic, because "in stormy times, the rule of law may seem to require the prudence and force that law, or present law, cannot supply, and the executive must be strong".

With these items in mind, go read the U.S. Constitution (especially Articles I-III which define the powers of the three equal branches).

One does not need be a Constitutional lawyer or expert to understand that, especially with regards to item E), President Bush is essentially claiming that the constitutional roles and powers of the Congress are unconstitutional.

In short: the President now stands above the Rule of Constitutional Law - particularly in times of crisis presented by external (re: global terrorism) or internal (re: home-grown terrorism) threats.

History clearly shows that such points of view and radical interpretations of the separation of powers within a republic, along with the slow erosion of the rule of law and the clamor for a single strong and powerful leader in times of crisis, have lead to the downfall and de facto end of the Roman republic.

Has President George W. Bush effectively "crossed the Rubicon"?

Do these days represent the critical period which will lead eventually to the end of the American republic?
Now read this news item (emphasis and extra links added):
(...) President Bush has quietly moved to expand the reach of presidential power by ensuring that America remains in a state of permanent war.

Buried in a recent proposal by the Administration is a sentence that has received scant attention -- and was buried itself in the very newspaper that exposed it Saturday. It is an affirmation that the United States remains at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban and "associated organizations."


Part of a proposal for Guantanamo Bay legal detainees, the provision before Congress seeks to “acknowledge again and explicitly that this nation remains engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated organizations, who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us and who are dedicated to the slaughter of Americans.”

The New York Times' page 8 placement of the article in its Saturday edition seems to downplay its importance. Such a re-affirmation of war carries broad legal implications that could imperil Americans' civil liberties and the rights of foreign nationals for decades to come.

It was under the guise of war that President Bush claimed a legal mandate for his warrantless wiretapping program, giving the National Security Agency power to intercept calls Americans made abroad. More of this program has emerged in recent years, and it includes the surveillance of Americans' information and exchanges online.

"War powers" have also given President Bush cover to hold Americans without habeas corpus (...)

Times reporter Eric Lichtblau notes that the measure is the latest step that the Administration has taken to "make permanent" key aspects of its "long war" against terrorism. Congress recently passed a much-maligned bill giving telecommunications companies retroactive immunity for their participation in what constitutional experts see as an illegal or borderline-illegal surveillance program, and is considering efforts to give the FBI more power in their investigative techniques.

"It is uncertain whether Congress will take the administration up on its request," Lichtblau writes. "Some Republicans have already embraced the idea, with Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, introducing a measure almost identical to the administration’s proposal. 'Since 9/11,' Mr. Smith said, 'we have been at war with an unconventional enemy whose primary goal is to kill innocent Americans.'"

If enough Republicans come aboard, Democrats may struggle to defeat the provision. Despite holding majorities in the House and Senate, they have failed to beat back some of President Bush's purported "security" measures, such as the telecom immunity bill.

Bush's open-ended permanent war language worries his critics. They say it could provide indefinite, if hazy, legal justification for any number of activities -- including detention of terrorists suspects at bases like Guantanamo Bay (where for years the Administration would not even release the names of those being held), and the NSA's warantless wiretapping program.

Lichtblau co-wrote the Times article revealing the Administration's eavesdropping program along with fellow reporter James Risen.

He notes that Bush's language "recalls a resolution, known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001... [which] authorized the president to 'use all necessary and appropriate force' against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks to prevent future strikes. That authorization, still in effect, was initially viewed by many members of Congress who voted for it as the go-ahead for the administration to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban, which had given sanctuary to Mr. bin Laden."

"But the military authorization became the secret legal basis for some of the administration’s most controversial legal tactics, including the wiretapping program, and that still gnaws at some members of Congress," he adds.
And let us not forget about torture and other "necessary" actions required to "fight" this now-official, never-ending Global War on Terrorism(TM).

Once again, we should keep very much in mind the ever convenient rationale of security agencies as they perform their "duty":
(...) This means that anything can and will be viewed by our security agencies within the narrow, paranoid prism of terrorism and threats to security.

Anything.

From blogging to writing a dissenting letter to a newspaper editor to a journalist trying to do investigative work to gathering at a coffee shop to rant about politics to reading "suspicious" stuff (books, blogs) to organizing/participating in activist actions (letter/phone/email campaigns, peaceful protests), etc., etc., etc.

Because any such activities may or may not - immediately or at some point in time or never at all - lead to acts which may or may not "threaten the safety and security of citizens or the integrity of the country's critical infrastructure".

So just in case and to be safe, let's monitor and survey and spy away on the citizenry.

And that is the ever convenient rationale of authoritarian security states for spying on their citizens.
Conclusion - no one is safe indeed:
It is a given, demonstrated fact that governmental security agencies are not seekers of truth, but seekers of guilt. Whenever they are given any powers to spy on their own citizens, they will do so - for reasons frivolous, paranoid or (apparently very rarely as shown so far) actually justified.

Anything and nothing can - and will - be held against you.

Because in the mindset of governmental security agencies, everyone is suspect, everyone is guilty. Period.
Welcome to the Security State governed by the all-powerful President-Pontificate, who will win (someday in the far, distant future, perhaps) the never-ending Global War on Terror(TM).

The last, final few steps in crossing the Rubicon are being be taken.

Should he be still alive today, I am convinced that George Orwell would say: "I told you so".

Thus the slow march toward tyranny is nearing its completion.

Any questions?


(Cross-posted from APOV)


Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 
by iampunha | 8/31/2008 08:00:00 AM
Because of this program, whose federal status ended 69 years ago today, we have one of the most beautiful pieces of Americana I have ever encountered. I referenced it here, and I'll go into more detail here.

Because of this program, an almost-lost generation of Americans, and a generation several other generations of Americans would just as soon have left to die anonymously, gained a voice.

Perhaps because many of us are fascinated by all things old, I am fascinated by this subject.

Perhaps it is because my paternal grandfather, despite his many faults (which I have documented here more than once), sewed himself to history -- because it allowed him to hold on to fleeting memories of his father.

Or perhaps it is because so many people got such a raw deal, and here I can let them live again.



For the Confederation of the Haudenosaunee, which began possibly August 31, 1142.

This story begins on April 9, 1865, when Gen. Lee surrendered at Appomattox Courthouse.

It begins in July 1935, when the WPA was first funded.

It begins in summer 2006, when I found the Slave Narratives through Project Gutenberg.

It begins with the acceptance of slavery as a social practice.



It doesn't end. How could it end? How do you stop talking about injustice? It was defended for two hundred years, then swept away by a war, then maintained socially through the extended poverty of generations of black people.



To a student of English, the beauty here, the phonetic spellings here are beyond description:

I 'membahs de time when mah mammy wah alive, I wah a small chile, afoah dey tuck huh t' Rims Crick. All us chillens wah playin' in de ya'd one night. Jes' arunnin' an' aplayin' lak chillun will. All a sudden mammy cum to de do' all a'sited. "Cum in heah dis minnit," she say. "Jes look up at what is ahappenin'," and bless yo' life, honey, da sta's wah fallin' jes' lak rain.* Mammy wah tebble skeered, but we chillen wa'nt afeard, no, we wa'nt afeard. But mammy she say evah time a sta' fall, somebuddy gonna die. Look lak lotta folks gonna die f'om de looks ob dem sta's. Ebbathin' wah jes' as bright as day. Yo' cudda pick a pin up. Yo' know de sta's don' shine as bright as dey did back den. I wondah wy dey don'. Dey jes' don' shine as bright. Wa'nt long afoah dey took mah mammy away, and I wah lef' alone.

*(One of the most spectacular meteoric showers on record, visible all over North America, occurred in 1833.)


Or, in Upper Midlands:

I remember the time when my mommy was alive. I was a small child, before they took her to Rims Creek [Valley, North Carolina?]. All of us children were playing in the yard one night. Just running and playing like children will. All of a sudden, mommy came to the door all excited. "Come in hear this minute," she said. "Just look up at what is happening," and bless your life, honey, the stars were falling just like rain. Mommy was terribly scared, but we children weren't afraid, no, we weren't afraid. But mommy, she said every time a star falls, somebody's going to die. Looked like a lot of folks were going to die from the looks of those stars. Everything was just as bright as day. You could have picked a pin up. You know the stars don't shine as brightly as they did back then. I wonder why they don't. They just don't shine as brightly. Wasn't long before they took my mommy away, and I was left alone.






Above, I said this story begins in summer 2006. That's when (as far as I can tell from e-mail) I started volunteering for Project Gutenberg, about which the more said the better (but not here). I was working as a proofreader at the lowest level, making sure things were formatted properly, removing scanner-based typos and the like.

I was not -- and this was emphasized from the beginning -- to remove anything authentic to the original. Spelling was not to be changed from the original copy (which was provided). The transition from pictures of text to text itself was to be faithful to the original at the expense of sometimes looking weird to the untrained eye.

Among the documents I looked at were something in Norse or Finnish (I quickly begged off), documents from the Warren Commission (absolutely fascinating, though nothing particularly new), a few pages of Middle French and some 17th century poetry.

And then I stumbled upon a page of a slave narrative.

And oh, Lordy, was I hooked. This text was captivating. Here I was reading the words of an ex-slave talking about life as I could never have imagined it. And these words were not cleaned up. There were reproduced faithfully as they had been uttered.

My mind's eye and ear went nuts. As I read the text, I invented a wandering oral history gatherer (named ... eampunha;)) and imagined that gatherer coming upon these folks with such stories to tell. I gave them fairly realistic voices and filled in the details of their dwellings and clothing as they came up in the narratives.

As my imagination went, imaginary ethical concerns came up. Does one maintain objectivity while recording these stories? Surely, the job of a storyteller is to entice the listener to want to hear more, to react, to ask questions.

My imaginary recorder asked questions, was astonished, complimented corn pone (or corn bread, as it sometimes was) etc. People who tell stories want to interact with their audience, fundamentally. They want to share. And if my imaginary person was to do his job, he was going to get people talking.

Part of me will never be happy with the element of the human condition that forbids us from actually traveling to the past to meet people. Forget the linguistic element of it; meeting people who experienced things we cannot now encounter excites the child in me to levels that escape the adult facade I maintain often quite poorly. Yeah, history regards the ex-slaves as nobodies, but a nobody who tells a story that survives becomes a somebody. (So too with the people in those stories, thus part of the massive patronage of poets until fairly recently.)



To tell you everything that struck me about the hundreds of narratives I read (as a proofreader, but before long as an awe-struck 20something) would take far too long. So I will keep my comments short and instead direct you to people whose stories were preserved by the WPA.

1) Some of the slaves didn't think too highly of Abraham Lincoln. One account I read (and which I have been unable thus far to locate, out of the 2300 narratives) indicated that the ex-slave missed slavery -- not because he loved working for free but because his master was particularly kind and he (the slave) missed being cared for. Several ex-slaves noted that their lives were worse for the Civil War -- because they no longer had the guarantee of being taken care of in their old age. (This strikes me as not a validation of slavery but a consequent of this country's method of dealing with ex-slaves: Let them get their own lives in order.)

2) These narratives are case in point for anyone arguing that education isn't important. What happens when you take people with little or no formal education and set them off to fend for themselves?

Nothing.

You get a bunch of people who become sharecroppers and raise their children on hope, fresh vegetables, the Bible and valuing their cultural history.

And with that as part of an upbringing, there's nothing wrong with it. But how do you move up from that place in life?

You move up with education. And in 1880s America, the average black child is going nowhere quick in a public school. In 1930s America, the average black child is going nowhere quick in a public school.

3) Such gorgeous language. Some of you might not take to phonetic English, or you may think ebonics/AAVE (African American Vernacular English) is a linguistic farce, but anyone with an open mind ... it's breathtaking stuff. It's as close to an actual physical, audible voice as these ex-slaves were ever going to get for a mass audience:

When de day begin to crack de whole plantation break out wid all kinds of noises, and you could tell what going on by de kind of noise you hear.

Come de daybreak you hear de guinea fowls start potracking down at the edge of de woods lot, and den de roosters all start up 'round de barn and de ducks finally wake up and jine in. You can smell de sow belly frying down at the cabins in de "row," to go wid de hoecake and de buttermilk.

Den purty soon de wind rise a little, and you can hear a old bell donging way on some plantation a mile or two off, and den more bells at other places and maybe a horn, and purty soon younder go old Master's old ram horn wid a long toot and den some short toots, and here come de overseer down de row of cabins, hollering right and left, and picking de ham out'n his teeth wid a long shiny goose quill pick.

Bells and horns! Bells for dis and horns for dat! All we knowed was go and come by de bells and horns!




The youngest of the ex-slaves in this country, let alone those interviewed by the Federal Writers' program, were born in the 1860s and likely had scant, if any, memories of being regarded by the law as property. (For how much longer they were socially regarded as property ...)

Birth in the 1860s means the last of them likely died in the 1970s at the very latest. Maybe one or two made it to 1980, but I sincerely doubt that, based on health care accessibility.

But there's a bigger point here.

An ex-slave woman who had a kid in her 40s (fairly late in life) would have given birth in the 1900s. At 45 years old, which is relatively rare today but which was not unheard of in slave times (though some other elements of slaves' sex lives were aggrandized), this gives a year of birth of, say, 1905.

This means today's youngest children of slaves are in their 100s. Today's youngest grandchildren of slaves are in their 60s, possibly, and have no firsthand memories of their enslaved ancestors.

Put differently, our physical, human connections with ex-slaves are dying or dead. The people who can tell stories about their parents and grandparents the ex-slaves are dying or dead.

We missed a huge opportunity to (forgive the verb) capture the life stories of the older slaves, the ones born in the time of Washington, Jefferson and Adams, when their stories were not recorded and made public. (Tell me you wouldn't gobble up the words of a person who was living in Virginia when Gen. Washington became Pres. Washington.) Because this country is so young, people living in 1865 remembered life in 1770.

And we missed that chance. We only barely got anything done in the 1930s with the ex-slaves still living.

So let's take what we have and be grateful for it. (Pages 195-196 detail the ex-slave's work for Jesse James.)





Labels: , ,

 
by midtowng | 8/31/2008 02:23:00 AM
On October 22, 1990, Senator Bob Dole came to the defense of his friend, John McCain, with what has become a very familiar refrain.
Referring to Mr. McCain's being a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for five and a half years, Mr. Dole said: "He has been held hostage before under very difficult circumstances. So let us not keep him hostage here in the Senate."
You see, John McCain was being tortured by the Senate Ethics Committee just like the North Vietnamese did. Or something like that.

Uh, right.



Charles Keating first became involved in politics in 1969, when he was appointed by President Richard Nixon to the President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography. Afterward he directed several failed attempts at censoring movies and books.
He broke into the banking industry in 1972 with American Financial Corporation. In 1984 they purchased Lincoln Savings and Loan. The purchase happened just as Congress began hearing calls for re-regulating the savings and loan industry.

In order to head off the re-regulating talk, Charles Keating hired an up-and-coming economist named Alan Greenspan to review Lincoln Savings assets. Greenspan, also an opponent of government regulation, gave the bank a glowing review. Greenspan recommended that Lincoln Savings be exempt from any new regulation.
Mr. Greenspan described Lincoln's management as ''seasoned and expert in selecting and making direct investments,'' as having a ''long and continuous track record of outstanding success in making sound and profitable direct investments,'' as succeeding ''in a relatively short period of time in reviving an association that had become badly burdened by a large portfolio of long-term fixed-rate mortgages'' and that it had ''restored the association to a vibrant and healthy state, with a strong net worth position."
Nevertheless, Edwin J. Gray, chair of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB), for some reason that Alan Greenspan couldn't understand, kept pushing for re-regulating the Savings and Loan industry.
Gray instituted a rule whereby savings associations could hold no more than ten percent of their assets in "direct investments", and were thus prohibited from taking ownership positions in certain financial entities and instruments
This was bad news for Lincoln Savings and Loan. By the end of 1986 they had unreported losses of $135 million and had exceeded their holdings of direct investments by $600 million.

Enter Keating Five

"The Republican reformer is back."
- CBS News on Senator McCain

It began to appear that the government was going to seize Lincoln Savings for being insolvent, but the investigation was taking a long time.
Charles Keating decided to ask five friendly senators for help. They were:

Alan Cranston (D-CA)
Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ)
John Glenn (D-OH)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Donald W. Riegle (D-MI)

Keating and McCain had been good friends since meeting in 1982 when McCain was first running for Congress. By 1987 Keating has raised $112,000 for McCain, more than a third of all the money he raised for all the Keating Five.

Over the years, McCain and his family took nine trips at Keating's expense (three to Keating's Bahamas' retreat), all of which McCain failed to disclose to the Senate Ethics Committee until after it was discovered during the investigation. At that point, he paid Keating $13,433 for the flights.
But that isn't the end of the story.
1. John McCain admitted to intentionally filing false income tax returns to defraud the IRS by not claiming thousands of dollars in gifts McCain and his family received from Charles Keating and Keating’s company. Years later, when the IRS noticed Keating’s company had written off the gifts to McCain as business expenses, McCain fessed up and admitted filing false returns and made a “donation” to the U.S. Treasury to cover the amount he defrauded American tax payers. (Committing tax fraud is one of the least offensive things John McCain has done over his career, but this article just focuses on his role in the Keating Five, and the Lincoln Savings and Loan scandal of the late 1980’s-early 1990’s). McCain also leaked information about the Keating Five to the press multiple times in an effort to appear above the other Senators in the scandal. A 1989 Phoenix New Times article summed it up best with their title - McCain: The Most Reprehensible of the Keating Five.

2. John McCain’s wife, Cindy McCain, along with her father, made a $359,000 investment in retail property owned by Charles Keating in 1986, a year before John McCain first met with federal regulators on behalf of Keating. Keating was later convicted on 73 counts of fraud, conspiracy, and other crimes. Years later, Cindy McCain sold her investment for $15,000,000.
In March of 1987, Keating and DeConcini asked McCain to travel to San Francisco to meet regulators on behalf of Lincoln Savings. McCain originally refused.
Keating responded by calling McCain a "wimp". Keating and McCain had a heated exchange on March 24.

Keating must have gotten his point across because on April 2, 1987, every member of the Keating Five, except for Riegle, met with Edwin J. Gray in DeConcini's office. The meeting was opened with the phrase "our friend at Lincoln."
Gray, obviously feeling intimidated, claimed he didn't know the details of Lincoln's situation and offered to set up a meeting with regulators.

On April 9, 1987, every member of the Keating Five met with three government regulators, again in DeConcini's office. The regulators thought the meeting was unusual.

"One of our jobs as elected officials is to help constituents in a proper fashion. ACC [American Continental Corporation] is a big employer and important to the local economy. I wouldn't want any special favors for them....I don't want any part of our conversation to be improper."
- Senator McCain at the April 9 meeting

The regulators informed the senators that Lincoln Savings wasn't just being investigated for insolvency, but was also under a criminal investigation.
At that point Senator McCain got cold feet and cut off contact with Charles Keating.

"I remain very upset that what they did caused such damage."
- William K. Black, one of the regulators at the April 9 meeting, and Keating Five whistleblower

In May the regulators recommended that Lincoln Savings be seized by the government. However, Gray's term in office was about to expire and didn't act before leaving office to avoid appearing to be vindictive due to his adversarial relationship with Keating.
The new chair of the FHLBB was M. Danny Wall, who was appointed by the Reagan Administration because he was more sympathetic to the S&L industry. Wall removed the Lincoln Savings investigation from San Francisco to Washington, where a new investigation began.

Lincoln Savings remained open until April 1989. Its assets grew from $3.91 billion to $5.46 billion during that time.
Branch managers and tellers convinced customers to take their FDIC-insured savings and put it into higher-yielding bond with ACC that were uninsured.

21,000 mostly elderly investors lost their life savings. The taxpayer's cost of cleaning up the mess was $2.6 Billion. Keating was hit with fraud and racketeering charges. In 1993 he was convinced of 73 counts. He served about four and a half years in prison.

In August 1991 the official Senate report came out on the Keating Five scandal.
It came down hardest on Alan Cranston. The only thing that saved him from censure was his decision not to run for re-election.
Riegle and DeConcini were ruled to have acted unethically.
The committee decided that Glen and McCain simply acted with "poor judgement".

"The appearance of it was wrong. It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do."
- Senator McCain

Almost every consumer group associated with scandal called the report a "whitewash". DeConcini said that McCain got a "free ride" despite being the "most culpable" of the five senators.

Labels:

 
by AndrewMc | 8/31/2008 12:12:00 AM
Let me start by saying that I'm curious how all of you teach progressive values to your students, without being overly political.

This is of some interest to me, because if the liberals in my department teach from what students perceive as a "liberal slant" students jump all over us. However, the military historian down the hall can rant and rave about the Clintons and the "socialist democrat party" all through a semester on Nazi Germany or World War I, and the students eat it up.



So, what do you do? Me, I try to emphasize progressive values--ideas of equality and diversity, of caring for the least in a society, and the ways in which we can see the values of a country or an empire by looking at the ways that it treats those in its society with the least access to power.


So, this week we're talking about ancient Greece. Among the many topics I'm covering are the rise of Greek democracy, the oikos, &c &c &c.

We're also going to talk gender, and gender comparisons. Within that we'll hit patriarchy, birth control, pederasty, and abortion. We''ll examine the nature of public roles for women in Athens and Greece, power imbalances, the phenomenon of the epikleros, Spartan marriage ceremonies, and differing ideas of sexuality.


I'd be curious to know how you all deal with progressive themes in your classes.

Labels: , , ,

 
by Winter Rabbit | 8/30/2008 11:15:00 PM

Source


Amnesty International conducted detailed research in three locations with different policing and judicial arrangements…: the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North and South Dakota, the State of Oklahoma and the State of Alaska.

- snip –

It (sexual violence) has been compounded by the federal government’s steady erosion of tribal government authority and its chronic under-resourcing of those law enforcement agencies and service providers…

- snip –

Some of the data…suggests that a high number of perpetrators of sexual violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women are non-Indian…It appears that Indigenous women in the USA may be targeted for acts of violence and denied access to justice on the basis of their gender and Indigenous identity.


Now why did”the South Dakota attorney general and researchers at the University of South Dakota challenge(d) that conclusion?”



In support of Andy Ternay’s Sister’s House, ”Mita Maske Ti Ki has been helping women and children escape from Domestic Violence and sexual assault in Sioux Falls and neighboring communities since 2000.”

(Italics & bold mine)

They have lost their grant funding and face closure by September if they don't get enough funding to continue to operate as a shelter. They need $11,000 by August 31st to operate through September.

The end goal is $35,000 by September 30th - three months of operating expenses as they apply for grant funding and get established out on their own.




CLICK HERE FOR THE LINK TO DONATE



"Are American Indians more often victims of crime than members of other ethnic and racial groups? Are most of the offenses committed against them committed by non-Indians, as opposed to members of their own group? Ever since the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics began issuing reports on this subject in 2000, the clear answer to both of those questions has seemed to be ''yes.''

Now the South Dakota attorney general and researchers at the University of South Dakota have challenged that conclusion, issuing a report that focuses on only one state but questions the Indian data nationally. Their challenge to the federal data is much too quick to dismiss the BJS findings.


Why did they challenge the facts?


Tribes and Native women's groups have raised them before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in order to secure greater support for Indian country criminal justice initiatives.


I think it was in part to save money.


Whatever their specific motivations may be, this is the time to use the $750 million for tribal law enforcement and $250 million for American Indian health care services wisely, though it won’t bring back at least three indigenous generations from 3,406 women that are not in existence now as the result of the forced sterilizations of Indigenous Women.Here’s quite another uncomfortable thing to ponder.


Source

According to a 1996 study by the Medical University of South Carolina, 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year in the United States.





Source

According to the National Women's Study, approximately 5% of adult female rape victims become pregnant as a result of their assault, leading to 32,100 pregnancies a year among women 18 years of age or older. Approximately 50% of pregnant rape victims had an abortion, 6% put the child up for adoption, and 33% kept the child (the remaining pregnancies resulted in miscarriage).


I'll share an expression I heard as a child in order to clarify to above point. I apologize up front for having to repeat it, but there is justification for doing so at the end. When I was 10, I heard an expression said in jest by another friend, it was “Custer’s bastard children.” Here’s an instance in which I think it may have originated.


Source

The Cheyenne women were "transported" by an officer named Romero to the other officers once they were prisoners at Fort Cobb.

Rape.


Custer "enjoyed one" every evening in the privacy of his tent. Presumably, he stopped raping the Cheyenne women when his wife arrived.


Source

Custer's wife, Elizabeth (Bacon), whom he married in 1864, lived to the age of ninety-one. The couple had no children. She was devoted to his memory, wrote three books about him, and when she died in 1933 was buried beside him at West Point.
Her Tenting on the Plains (1887) presents a charming picture of their stay in Texas. Custer's headquarters building in Austin, the Blind Asylum, located on the "Little Campus" of the University of Texas, has been restored.



Jerome A. Greene. "Washita." Chap. 8, p.169:


Ben Clack told Walter M. Camp: many of the squaws captured at Washita were used by the officers...Romero was put in charge of them and on the march Romero would send squaws around to the officers' tents every night. [Clark] says Custer picked out a fine looking one and had her in his tent every night."


This statement is more or less confirmed by Frederick Benteen, who in 1896 asserted that Custer selected Monahseetah/Meotzi from among the women prisoners and cohabited with her "during the winter and spring ao 1868 and '69" until his wife arrived in the summer of 1869. Although Benteen's assertions regarding Custer are not always to be trusted, his statements nonetheless conform entirely to those of the reliable Ben Clark and thus cannot be ignored."




Clearly, the ”the South Dakota attorney general and researchers at the University of South Dakota (who) challenge(d) that conclusion” were not only guilty of falsifying the evidence to at least achieve a capitalistic end, they were guilty of falsifying evidence which leads to harming any children born of that rape. Custer also lied about it, unless you think he said to his wife, “I raped a Cheyenne woman in my tent every night and slept with Monahseetah/Meotzi until you got here.” Point is, that whether it's Custer or the South Dakota attorney general and researchers at the University of South Dakota lying about the rape of Indigenous Women, what’s the difference in that denial to the victim?



Source

Individuals who have been sexually assaulted have also been noted to have increased risk for developing other mental health problems. Over those who have not been victimized, rape victims are:

• three times more likely to have a major depressive episode
• four times more likely to have contemplated suicide
• thirteen times more likely to develop alcohol dependency problems
• twenty-six times more likely to develop drug abuse problems


What’s the difference in that denial to the children born of that rape?


When Their Worlds Fall Apart

Children conceived in rape and born into violence often suffer from social ostracism.


Answer to “What’s the difference?” Too close for an attorney general and researchers at any university, and one hundredths of an inch is too close. Furthermore, by using the high office of attorney general and the high position of scholarship to ignore and falsify evidence, they harm the children that are born out of rape as well.



Starting Something New. Following the Children Born of Rape Towards Human Rights Culture

Abstract: 'War babies' (Carpenter 2004), the children born as a result of wartime rape and sexual exploitation, are among the least visible of vulnerable children in warzones.


The reservations may not warzones, but they sure as hell are bad enough, having been concentration camps,which are much worse.



Shadow Report: "Indian Reservation Apartheid"

…human rights violations and an institutionalized racism against indigenous peoples is alive and thriving in the United States...


Consolidated Indigenous Shadow Report

III. Indian Reservation Apartheid


“Apartheid” is certainly a strong word. And certainly, there are recognized tribes in the U.S. that are now achieving certain levels of relative prosperity primarily due to federal law allowing them to operate casinos, But the data contained in this section as well as others in this report (see, e.g., Violence Against Women, The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health) reflect what only can be described as a system of Apartheid on many Indian Reservations, where Indigenous people are warehoused in poverty and neglect. By purpose or effect, their only option is forced assimilation, the abandonment of their land, families, language and cultures in search of a better life.





Labels:

 
by iampunha | 8/30/2008 08:00:00 AM
They got Nat at 31.

They suppressed millions for decades.

They still have to contend with Dr. C.T. Vivian.

They had to serve with 'em.

Rubin Stacy didn't stand a chance.

Ted Radcliffe was born too late.

Myles Horton made his life about them.

Today's honoree ... well, was born today. And there's a little more to it than that.



For Ted Williams, born on Aug. 30, 1918, the greatest hitter who ever lived.

Through integration, just after Brown v. Board, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, before and after the 1968 Summer Olympics protests, up to and including the black power fists raised in silence by Tommie Smith and John Carlos, this man led the NAACP.

Before and after the murders of Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and others whose names I wish weren't associated with dying for civil rights, this man led the NAACP.

One hundred seven years ago today was born a boy of no consequence then. His story, while unique, is ... not. For many children then had parents who had to work hard and hope for more hard work to do:

The grandson of former slaves from Holly Springs, Miss., [Roy] Wilkins was born in St. Louis, where his father worked himself to sullen exhaustion in a brick kiln across the river. The boy's mother died of tuberculosis (as would his sister and brother) when he was 5, but the children were blessed with a secure and happy upbringing in the St. Paul, Minn., home of their childless Uncle Sam and Aunt Elizabeth. Sam Williams, a railroad steward, taught Wilkins two unforgettable lessons: always to keep his fingernails clipped and clean and to do his best at school, because ''no one can ever steal an education away from a man.''


Father beaten by life, mother dead.

He pressed on:

According to Wilkins, his was, for the most part, a pleasant childhood in a loving family, though not without its trials. His uncle, Sam Williams, worked for the Northern Pacific Railroad, managing the personal railroad car for the company president. The family was far from wealthy, but did not lack any of the basic necessities. Wilkins stayed close to his own “quiet neighborhood” and away from “the turf belonging to the Rice Street Gang, the toughest kids in the city,” where “the word ‘nigger’ was part of the equipment, along with other brickbats.” Despite these constraints, Wilkins would later say that it was in St. Paul that he first learned it was not impossible “for white people and black people to live next door to one another, to get along—even to love one another.”


Not impossible ... only if the majority is not told to feel threatened by the minority. (Fear-mongering in politics is as old as politics.)

Wilkins went on to significant achievement at the University of Minnesota -- in the 1920s. He edited the school paper -- in the 1920s.

Not only had no black person edited the school paper before that, no black person had done much of anything with the school paper.

About a decade later, Roy Wilkins took over the NAACP's monthly magazine.

He succeeded W.E.B. Du Bois.



Tell me you wouldn't be satisfied with your life if you were taking over for someone like W.E.B. Du Bois.

Tell me, even as a joke, that you wouldn't consider your entire life's struggle validated.



Roy Wilkins didn't say the words.

He lived them.

In 1955, Wilkins became the executive secretary of the NAACP, a position whose name changed in 1965 but whose occupant remained the same until 1977.

In between, he organized a march and did some other things. He talked to some presidents about some things and got some awards.

It takes a lot to make the Presidential Medal of Freedom pedestrian, but Roy Wilkins kept on working.

Why?

Well, when there's work to be done, do you stop working or do you keep up your momentum and get more done?

Nobody's ever going to hand you a damn thing if they want to keep it to themselves. Roy Wilkins knew that. He knew that from watching his father drag his beaten body home from work. He knew that from visiting the South:

As an editor at the Call, Wilkins waged a campaign to defeat racist Senator Henry J. Allen. This effort caught the attention of Walter White (see), executive secretary of the N.A.A.C.P., who urged Wilkins to move to New York and become his chief assistant in 1931. As White had done, Wilkins went on assignment to investigate lynchings and working conditions for African-Americans in the South. His 1932 report, "Mississippi Slave Labor," is credited with bringing Congressional action to improve the working conditions for blacks in levee labor camps.


Congressional action started because There weren't any Southern senators in the Senate chamber to introduce the matter, but not so much with the anti-lynching action. (The more I read about race relations in the time before the 1960s, and the more I refuse to adopt a historically accurate white-person lens, the more I identify with the people who didn't think nonviolent action would work.)



At 30 years old, Wilkins was doing this. Four years his junior at present, I am nowhere near any of what he did.

This would be deflating if not for how things are better now, if not for the fact that we do not now need a Roy Wilkins as much as we did back then. Yes, you're damn right there are still wrongs to be righted, but we do not now have people fleecing laborers as stridently and rampantly as we did back then. (And if we do, tell me. Never treat my words as authoritative, only investigative.)

But though the situation is not as dire, though we no longer have a president unwilling or unable to face down his party's enfranchised racists, there is still work to do. I have even showcased some of it in previous diaries (google environmental racism).

And if we choose to honor Roy Wilkins' legacy, now a few days removed from the official nomination of Barack Obama to this country's highest office, and arguably this world's most prestigious role, we can look to Wilkins' determination and vision, combine it with John F. Kennedy's call to service and add Barack Obama's oft-quoted advice:

Yes, we can.

Martin Luther King & Roy Wilkins On 1963 Meet The Press


*The University of Minnesota could have exercised more pride in the achievements of Roy Wilkins, but I am willing to let that slide partly because the school gave an opportunity to a black quarterback in the 1970s. That player was Tony Dungy. Yes, that Tony Dungy.

Labels:

 
by Unknown | 8/29/2008 11:09:00 PM
Pete Seeger and Jean Ritchie sing "Jenny Jenkins," ca. 1965:



Pete Seeger and Jean Ritchie sing "Jenny Jenkins," ca. 1996:

Labels:

 
by Ralph Brauer | 8/29/2008 02:14:00 PM
The most remarkable part of the remarkable speech Barack Obama delivered in Denver last night was that he truly offered a real possibility of cutting the Gordian Knot that has become Washington politics. For decades now, not matter what the issue both sides have dug in and waged protracted trench warfare. That is why I refer to our current period as the era of Bad Feelings.

The result has produced political gridlock and doubts among many Americans about the ability of their government to function with either of the two political parties in power. Even more it has turned Washington into a city of zealots, who fill the op ed columns, talk radio and even television with vitriol that has poisoned the air so every day in DC feels like one of those humid July afternoons when you feel as though you can't breathe. When the tourists ride the elevator to the top of the Washington Monument and look over to the Capitol dome across the National Mall, they see not a symbol of democracy in action, but the rounded lid of a simmering pot that constantly seems to be boiling over.




Today it is impossible to turn on the radio, watch television or pick up a newspaper without finding an example of these partisan wars, which increasingly resemble one of those professional wrestling extravaganzas where two elaborately costumed, steroid-laden Neanderthals grope one another in a steel cage or pit full of mud. Any American could readily supply a top-ten list of examples.

In the nether reaches of the Internet, a wilderness punctuated by the tangled trails of emails and listservs where potshots come from the likes of "random," "ch2," and "coz," lie electronic Tombstones and Deadwoods featuring no-holds-barred brawling and a hair-trigger impulse to shoot from the hip at the first perceived insult.

My son spent a summer interning in DC and has lived there teaching for Americorps the past year, participating as his school's representative in several city-wide summits and he sees this first hand. During his time in Congress it seemed as though no matter what the issue both sides immediately moved to the extremes. Compromise became a dirty word. It meant that somehow your side had given up something vital, as if compromise was the equivalent of the famous parable of King Solomon cutting the baby in half.

In the ideological agenda pushed by the Republican Counterrevolution, the GOP viewed compromise as pragmatism and pragmatism was viewed as capitulation. Meanwhile on the other side of the aisle, values all but disappeared as the Democrats appeared to buy the media characterization of the Republicans as the party of values.

Instead the Democrats opted for something they termed triangulation, which was not even pragmatism, but a willingness to accept the GOP's larger world view and try to take a position just to the left of the other party. So the Democrats signed off on the Iraq War, tax cuts for the rich, the Patriot Act. The Democrats appeared to have no principles at all.

Throughout this campaign I have voiced a fear that Barack Obama could merely be another Clinton, Kerry clone devoid of values. There was a suspicion that the word "change" masked a tendency to triangulate every issue.

What I heard from Barack Obama last night was something truly remarkable; a speech that began with principles yet offered real solutions to help cut the Gordian Knot that has plagued American politics. First, Obama quite deliberately began with principles. Chief among them was a venerable Democratic Party value that goes back to William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech and characterized every significant Democratic leader of the American Century.

First Obama defined the Republicans, something this blog had urged in a previous essay:
For over two decades -- for over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy: Give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.

In Washington, they call this the "Ownership Society," but what it really means is that you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck, you're on your own. No health care? The market will fix it. You're on your own. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, even if you don't have boots. You are on your own.

Perhaps because he had said it the night before when he congratulated Joe Biden, Obama did not include the alternative, which perhaps he should have. That night he said:
At the start of this campaign, we had a very simple idea: Change does not start from the top down. It starts from the bottom up.

Here is Franklin Roosevelt in his famous "Forgotten Man" speech referring to the efforts of World War I:
It was a great plan because it was built from bottom to top and not from top to bottom.

Here is Woodrow Wilson in his First Inaugural:
There has been something crude and heartless and unfeeling in our haste to succeed and be great. Our thought has been “Let every man look out for himself, let every generation look out for itself,” while we reared giant machinery which made it impossible that any but those who stood at the levers of control should have a chance to look out for themselves.

Here is William Jennings Bryan in "Cross of Gold:"
There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.


The second key principle Obama evoked was equity. In his first Inaugural Woodrow Wilson uttered the phrase that stands at the masthead of this blog. In a preceding paragraph he stated:
With the great Government went many deep secret things which we too long delayed to look into and scrutinize with candid, fearless eyes. The great Government we loved has too often been made use of for private and selfish purposes, and those who used it had forgotten the people.

Society must see to it that it does not itself crush or weaken or damage its own constituent parts. The first duty of law is to keep sound the society it serves. Sanitary laws, pure food laws, and laws determining conditions of labor which individuals are powerless to determine for themselves are intimate parts of the very business of justice and legal efficiency.

Here was Barack Obama last night:
Ours -- ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves: protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools, and new roads, and science, and technology.

Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who's willing to work.

Finally there is the value that I have evoked again and again as the heart of Liberal America, the level playing field:
At the heart of liberalism lies the belief that government exists to do good for the people. It serves to level the playing field when those with power and money seek to tilt things in their direction, to assure that the votes are counted fairly, to maintain a free and open "marketplace of ideas," to stimulate our society to positive ends whether in the arts or research, and to provide an equal education so that every American not only starts from the same point, but also has the same opportunities every step of the way on into college and even professional school and work. Its values lie behind the ringing inaugural addresses of FDR and JFK as well as what is the single greatest American speech of the last century, Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" masterpiece.

Barack Obama did not use those words--I wish he had because they make the issue clearer--but he did evoke the concept when he spoke about America and the role of government. This was the only soft spot in a remarkable speech, for Obama appeared to be trying to walk down the middle of the road, using the word responsibility, but in evoking the need for responsibility he made it clear the basis of that responsibility:
What -- what is that American promise? It's a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have obligations to treat each other with dignity and respect.

It's a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, to look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.

That's the promise of America, the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation, the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper.

This may become Barack Obama's contribution to the legacy of Liberal America, for on the anniversary of Martin Luther King, jr.'s famous "I Have a Dream" speech he used Dr. King's biblical language to reframe the level playing field in biblical terms. "I am my brother's keeper." That is at the heart of what Bryan, Wilson, FDR, and Truman had said.

In this current climate those are the words that need to be evoked, for in framing the level playing field in religious terms ("I am my brother's keeper" is a concept common to all religions) he delivered two masterful blows to what the Counterrevolution had been saying for two decades or more: first, he coopted the so-called religious/values argument by evoking the most universal religious value of all; second, he exposed the hypocrisy of much that has transpired under the name of the Counterrevolution and its religious allies.

Obama then went on to steer a new course by specifically spelling out how these principles can actually be put into action. Yes. some of this was yet another list of programs that has characterized the Democratic Party for the last quarter century, but in the Obama speech because they quite deliberately followed the values section they become applications of those values.

Framed this way the programs become not what the GOP has accused the Democrats of being--a Party of special interests--but an actualization of values. As such they stand for something other than mere entitlements. In this sense Barack Obama's speech resembles Harry Truman's incomparable Kiel Auditorium speech.

But Obama went Truman one better, adding a third section to his speech which addresses the major issue of our time--governing. What the American people want to know is how will this President actually deal with an issue such as gun control? What will he do with the abortion zealots? How will he govern in the Era of Bad Feelings? Can he sever the Gordian Knot?

No politician of either party has had the courage to wade directly into these issues. Their positions have either been to stick to rigid ideology or obfuscate. What Obama promised was that we can bridge this ideological gridlock without descending into ideological warfare. This is the part of the speech that had me believing this man just might win in November. I quote this part of the speech at some length because no paraphrase could do it justice:
And Democrats, as well as Republicans, will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past, for part of what has been lost these past eight years can't just be measured by lost wages or bigger trade deficits. What has also been lost is our sense of common purpose, and that's what we have to restore.

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country.

he -- the reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.

I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in a hospital and to live lives free of discrimination.

You know, passions may fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers.

If Barack Obama can succeed in framing the election as he did last night John McCain will have an uphill fight. If he can take the values card away from the Counterrevolution and put it back in the hands of the Democratic Party, he will win. If he can show that government can play a role in keeping the playing field level he will win, If he can show that he can deal with ideological rigidity and still forge solutions not anger, then he will win.

Now we wait to see what McCain will do. His convention does not promise an auspicious beginning, putting none other than George W. Bush on stage the first night. With the memory of Obama's speech still fresh, the contrast should prove interesting. The man who helped to create the Gordian Knot will try to defend his tangled mess.

Crossposts: My Left Wing,The Strange Death of Liberal America

Labels:

 
by Unknown | 8/29/2008 02:03:00 PM
(Cross-posted at The Wild, Wild Left.)

I promise I'll stop soon with the straight-up political posts. But for now, let's talk about McCain's VP choice of Sarah Palin:

The Good (for McCain):

- Palin is a savvy, intelligent politician who actually knows how to win elections -- unlike Pawlenty (who won reelection by a single point against a subpar opponent), Romney (who retired in 2006 rather than face certain defeat), or Lieberman (who couldn't even win his own party's primary).

- Palin will lock down Alaska, which surprisingly actually matters.

- Palin is viewed by libertarians as a compatriot and will blunt Barr's impact on the race in every state but Georgia.

- Palin effectively neutralizes Biden's attack-dog abilities in the VP debate, because, right or wrong, the voters won't allow him to verbally bludgeon a woman. (A Republican woman, that is. As the Clinton campaign showed, the voters have no qualms about attacking a Democratic woman.) Basically, McCain has outdrawn Obama in terms of the VP debate. Biden will now have to tread very, very carefully.

The Bad (for McCain):

- The Palin scandal. This is a huge, huge deal, and should be hammered home by the campaign. Unfortunately, Obama can't do it because of his post-partisan image, and Biden can't do it for reasons discussed above. That means it's up to the 527s and, yes, the bloggers, to harp on this one until someone in the media finally takes notice.

- The PUMAs. Fresh off being right about Biden (and about Schweitzer), Markos is wrong again when he says the Palin pick is a pick for the base. The "base" would have been thrilled with Pawlenty and happy with Romney -- McCain didn't need to go outside the box to woo them. Instead, the Palin pick is clearly a further salvo in McCain's attempt to win over disgruntled Hillary supporters. Apparently, he's decided that the PUMAs are the key swing voters in this election -- you know, all 600 or so of them. It's poetic justice that Hillary's most ardent supporters might just hand this election to Obama, by so convincing McCain of their own self-importance that he panders to them with his VP choice.

So, that's what I've got. What do you think?

Labels:

 
by Unknown | 8/28/2008 02:20:00 PM
(Cross-posted at Open Left, The Wild, Wild Left, Politics & Letters, and Never In Our Names.)

A friend of mine expressed to me the concern that Mark Warner's sucktastic keynote speech at the DNC might doom Obama's presidential hopes. Of course, he told me this before Clinton's and Biden's excellent speeches yesterday, so he may have a different opinion now. In any case, I think that worry is largely unfounded -- keynote addresses don't really make a difference historically in the presidential ticket's chances.

Ask any Democratic political observer what the two most important DNC keynote addresses of the past thirty years were (notice I'm carefully excluding Barbara Jordan's magnificent address of 1976, named by AmericanRhetoric.com as the fifth greatest recorded speech in American history), and you'll get a pretty uniform response. First they'll mention this speech, which I'm guessing most of you have already seen:



It's the speech that launched Barack Obama's national career, a transcendent peroration linking Obama's personal story with the national story and introducing us to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's phrase, "the audacity of hope."

Unless you're of a certain age, you're less likely to have seen the second speech.



In 1984, a month and a half before I was born, Mario Cuomo delivered the most important address of his career as the DNC keynoter. At the time, Cuomo was a moderately well-known governor of New York. Though I'd heard plenty of stories about the brilliance of Cuomo's speech, I was surprised when I finally watched it. The shockingly short speech -- less than eight minutes long, and delivered in Cuomo's broad New York drawl -- is the antithesis of Obama's autobiographical odyssey: Cuomo never mentions his own history at all. Nor is it the type of eloquent partisan boilerplate that Barbara Jordan had delivered eight years earlier, or that we saw Joe Biden and Brian Schweitzer indulge in at this week's convention. Instead, Cuomo's address is a brisk and devastating attack on Ronald Reagan's economic triumphalism, using the President's "City on a Hill" address as a foil. Along the way, Cuomo engages in the type of class-based rhetoric that no one but John Edwards can get away with any more (and that, of course, means no one at all). Nevertheless, one gets the feeling that if more Democrats had talked like Cuomo back in 1984, Americans might have come out of their Reaganomic stupor somewhat earlier.

Here's the speech:



Despite the impressiveness of both these speeches, it's important to note that in neither year did the Democratic nominee win the White House. Ironically, in 1984 Walter Mondale's own convention speech may have doomed his prospects. In a disastrous moment of honesty, Mondale announced to the delegates: "Mr. Reagan will raise your taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you; I just did." Despite the prescience of this statement -- Reagan did indeed raise taxes in the aftermath of the election -- the American people were not amused. Mondale went down to defeat by eighteen points in the November election. Similarly, John Kerry lost in 2004 after a series of attacks on his character. In neither case did the brilliant keynote speech of months earlier make any difference in the election.

What the keynote addresses did accomplish was to rocket the keynoters themselves to national prominence. A bad keynote speech doesn't necessarily doom the speaker's Presidential prospects -- disastrous outings by Bill Clinton in 1988 and Evan Bayh in 1996 didn't seem to hurt their chances -- but an excellent one does more than raise the speaker's profile: it makes him an instant frontrunner for the next Presidential election. Both Cuomo and Obama were heavily recruited to run for President in 1988 and 2008, respectively. Obama, as we know, availed himself of this opportunity. Cuomo flirted with the idea in bith 1988 and 1992 before ultimately declining to run in both years, earning himself the nickname "Hamlet on the Hudson." One of my earliest memories was of watching on television, at age eight, Cuomo nominating Bill Clinton for president at the 1992 DNC, and hearing my mother lament that it wasn't Clinton nominating Cuomo instead.

On Tuesday, Mark Warner lost an opportunity to turn himself into an instant celebrity, as Cuomo and Obama had before him. But he didn't do any damage to the Obama ticket. As Walter Mondale learned, the only person who can doom the Democratic ticket at the convention is the Democratic nominee himself. Tonight, we'll see how Obama fares.

Labels:

 
by Unknown | 8/28/2008 11:18:00 AM
I've been doing my best to keep y'all informed about the DNC, but I didn't realize that Kevin Murphy of Ghost in the Machine was actually live-blogging from the convention. If you're interested, check out his highly informative coverage.

Otherwise, use this as an open thread. What's on your mind?

Labels:

 
by Winter Rabbit | 8/27/2008 08:39:00 PM
I would have hoped that the Longest Walk that began in February and ended six months later, would have brought the issues of the truth about the suicides on reservations, the lack of justice on reservations, climate change, alcohol and drug addiction in the American Indian population, health concerns of American Indians, and the worries of the American Indian People in general into the public domain. It doesn’t seem like it did, and the same message is being given at the DNC in the midst of all that’s happening.



Hillary gave a speech to her supporters last night to support Obama.


Native voices were heard in alternative venues at the DNC


''We want to give youth a voice and be a voice for them in the meantime,'' said a Savage Family member. ''Our children right now are dying. They're saying, 'I don't want to live' and they may kill themselves. But our future is through them.''


She also talked about helping children.




''When I think of the things that I hear and see in the media, about how many different special interest groups speak of various subjects, like the right to live - or pro-life - I can't help but think of the children around the world, who never get a chance to live because of the exploitation of their resources of their country and their people.



And their future.


''All of the destruction that is taking place here and abroad is a direct result of people, special interest groups, whose interest is primarily wealth and taking more than they need.''


From the big men in high places, how ‘bout a little press on this?

Really.





Labels:

 
by iampunha | 8/27/2008 05:17:00 PM
Del Martin, a lesbian rights pioneer who took part in one of California's first same-sex weddings, died today in San Francisco after a long period of declining health. She was 87.


-San Francisco Chronicle

Because I am at work, and because this is very quickly becoming very hard for me to do and maintain a dry face, I will stop here except to say that Del and Phyllis have meant so very much to me and so very many of my friends for many years.

Del will be missed. ... no, strike that. We will miss Del.

An active voice deserves the active voice.



Photobucket
source

Labels:

 
by Unknown | 8/26/2008 09:44:00 PM
For all those who remember way back when I did this -- I was vindicated tonight. Markos himself says so.

I'll update with video of the speech for those who missed it, as soon as it's available.

[Update] Schweitzer improvised the last five minutes of the speech, including the part about the "petro-dictators" and the best line of the night, "The petro-dictators will never own American wind and sunshine." The guy is friggin' amazing.

[Update II} Here's the video:

Labels:

 
by Unknown | 8/26/2008 01:25:00 PM
Pursuant to Daisy's post about the lack of blogs by older women on blogrolls, I've added the following sites to mine:

I've had Mary Dudziak on my blogroll before, but removed her for some inexplicable reason. Her site is the place to go on the web for legal history news and information, and is always an excellent read. By my inelegant estimation, Professor Dudziak is about fifty-two years old.

I can't absolutely guarantee that Judith Weingarten is over fifty, but her site -- on ancient Egyptian history -- is well worth reading anyway.

Deborah Lipstadt, who is sixty-one years old, is the primary antagonist of Holocaust denier/historian David Irving. While Lipstadt is a bit conservative for my tastes, her opinions make for a bracing read.

I don't promise to keep any of these blogs on my blogroll indefinitely, but I do plege to make sure there are at least a few blogs by older women on there if at all possible.

Labels:

 
by Unknown | 8/25/2008 08:16:00 PM
Daisy of Daisy's Dead Air has a guest post at Feministe entitled "Time Out For Grandma." In the piece, she bemoans the exclusion of older women from the left blogosphere:

In short, the treatment of old women in Blogdonia* is a scandal and mirrors the dismissal of old women in the culture at large. Very few old women are included in the “Big Blogs”–with the exception of Arianna Huffington, who owns hers outright. Older men are more often in established writing careers and have easily segued into blogging. Older women with time on their hands after retirement or raising children, are great candidates to start blogging. Many of us wrote regular book-length letters (in longhand no less), back in the day. Although we were once quite accustomed to writing and journaling, it seems that many of us get near a computer and totally freeze up. This seems like the staked-out territory of the young, and WHAT the devil are we doing here? (Men, it seems, never ask themselves that question, even when they should.) Lots of old-women blogs are started and then never kept up. Others are afraid to stray off a topic of expertise… thus, you have countless cooking and gardening blogs, but not the great variety of content from the average older man’s blog, which will typically include his political opinions, movie reviews, stories from his life, etc.


I was interviewed for this piece, and while I'm not quoted in it, I think Daisy's done a generally fine job with her post. I agree with her that older women are underrepresented and underappreciated in the blogosphere, and more importantly I concur that this fact is a symptom of the disturbing marginalization of older women in our society. Older women, like everyone else, deserve equal treatment based upon their common humanity. The links to older women blogs provided in the article are very useful as well, and well worth checking out.



Where I disagree with the post is when Daisy implies that older women somehow deserve more than equal treatment based on the important strides made by the 1960's generation of feminists. Here's Daisy:

As I wrote in my “Thank a Second-Wave (OLD) Feminist” post, lots of us were instrumental in very basic reforms that many of you now take for granted. Our stories are part of the feminist legacy, and deserve to be told. ... And of course there is this essential truth: older women, in general, are simply not considered very important. Speaking of the conventions, it is this sentiment that we see amplified in Hillary’s supporters, a general feeling of having been ignored and dissed. I daresay their anger is not simply about Hillary, but she makes a great focal point.


Again, I agree that women who were instrumental in the feminist revolution should be honored for their contributions in that regard. On the other hand, however, we shouldn't venerate every member of the feminist generation just because some of them made a difference. Nor should the past heroism of older women privilege their contributions today, any more than Ralph Nader's heroic actions in the 1970's entitle him to work against progressive interests today. Hillary Clinton doesn't get a pass on criticism for her corporate toolishness just because her generation accomplished great things for American women. Older women deserve recognition for their sacrifices and triumphs, but they aren't more equal than others, and arguments for why they're entitled to special treatment are no more fair than how they're being treated today.

Similarly, I have to disagree with this:

...One thing you can do, if you have a blog, is link old lady bloggers. If you go down your blogroll, and you can’t find anyone old, ask yourself why that is. It is no accident. You must make the effort.


The assumption that people (like me) who don't link to older women are doing so as a conscious and malicious choice is frankly offensive. I can testify to the fact that before Daisy brought up the issue, it hadn't occurred to me that I didn't link to any blogs with women over 50 on them. Since then, I've been on the lookout for older women blogs to link to, but I haven't found any yet that I'd like to add. I do agree that it's good to have diversity on our blogrolls, and I hope to have some older women blogs on there soon. But I don't believe blogrolls are the root of the problem, nor do I think they have a large role to play in the solution of this or any other social ill.

Daisy's post is well worth reading for the points it makes and the questions it raises. But I think her arguments leave something to be desired, if only because nobody likes being told that other people are better than they are. As a member of a group that she rightly identifies as being discriminated against, she of all people should know better.

Labels:

 
by Unknown | 8/25/2008 03:54:00 PM
Markos:

Lots of media coming through the Big Tent [where DNC bloggers are stationed]. The camera crews are taking B-Roll, the random background shots they put into news reports.

And the B-Roll is ... people working on laptops! Exciting!

It's nothing like their own newsrooms where people are ... working on laptops!


George Orwell, Animal Farm:

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.




What's on your mind?

Labels:

 
by Ralph Brauer | 8/24/2008 05:35:00 PM
fdr

I really wanted to like the Democrats' platform. I believed that Barack Obama could remake the Party as Woodrow Wilson did in 1912 when he united the progressives and the Bourbons. Now I am wondering if we are in for a replay of Dukakis, Clinton, Gore and Kerry--trying to walk down the middle of the road like a drunk trying to prove their sobriety.


Most of all I am beginning to wonder if all this talk about change is really just more of the same-old, same-old that has cost the Democrats the last two elections. Right now Barack Obama is running dead even with John McCain, having lost his early lead. If you read the platform you can understand why.

Of course, Obama will get a chance to put his personal stamp on the campaign with his much-anticipated speech to the convention. Expectations for this speech are so high that it will take a Michael Phelps-like miracle to pull it off. Even more critical is that Obama must have the classic post-convention "bump" if he stands any chance of winning.

If his speech is like the platform, he could be in trouble because as a written document the platform has all the flavor of someone trying to please everyone. Let's call it the Democratic two-step, for parts of the platform move close to a needed redefinition of the Party only to take two steps back. This is not a platform written by a confident Party, a Party that thought it would walk in the White House because George Bush and the Republicans have made such a mess of things. Instead this platform has all the earmarks of a Party that is afraid to lose.

As I have said so many times I am getting tired of hearing it, the platform and the Obama campaign must focus on principles and values. Change is neither a principle nor a value. It is at best a tactic and at worst empty rhetoric. Every obscure city council candidate who doesn't know what else to say runs on a platform of change. George W. Bush promised change.

For this reason the most important part of the platform is the preamble because it should lay out in precise language exactly what values will guide the Obama Administration. Check out this paragraph from the 1908 Democratic Platform:
The Democratic party is the champion of equal rights and opportunities to all; the Republican party is the party of privilege and private monopoly. The Democratic party listens to the voice of the whole people and gauges progress by the prosperity and advancement of the average man; the Republican party is subservient to the comparatively few who are the beneficiaries of governmental favoritism.

The first clue the 2008 preamble is in trouble is that it is too long. Having walked more organizations than I can count through the experience of defining visions and goal setting, I always stressed these statements must be short, to the point and pass the grocery store test: that is if you run into someone in the grocery store you should be able to repeat the vision in your own words.

The 2008 Democratic Platform fails this test miserably. After reading the preamble I could not summarize it if I was being waterboarded. It rambles on for three pages. Had the writers of the 2008 preamble been assigned to write the Declaration of Independence we might still be a British colony, for the entire preamble is longer than the entire Declaration. Imagine trying to post three pages on the nearest lamp post or tree.

Everyone knows the Declaration's opening paragraphs represent the gold standard. I did not expect the 2008 platform to equal Thomas Jefferson, because no one has ever accomplished that, but I didn't expect tin either. The lengthy preamble eerily reminds me of John Kerry's 2004 platform mess that provided a clue to the main weakness of his campaign. I still defy people to tell me what John Kerry ran on and what he stood for. I am worried we may find ourselves asking the same question a year from now.

In outline form a preamble should have three or four sections stating what we believe, why we believe it, what we intend to do with those beliefs, and why those beliefs are needed. Give each of these a paragraph and you have at most 1-2 pages. When you examine the 2008 preamble you find it consists of 16 paragraphs, of which five long paragraphs describe the mess George Bush and the Counterrevolution have created. Unfortunately these paragraphs consist of a laundry list of things we already know rather than zeroing in on the reason for the failures.

That reason is that quite simply the Republicans have a different philosophy of government. Pointing out that difference was the center of Democratic platforms for most of the twentieth century.

Take the 1932 platform, which BTW is only 40 paragraphs. it ends:
And in conclusion, to accomplish these purposes and to recover economic liberty, we pledge the nominees of this convention the best efforts of a great Party whose founder announced the doctrine which guides us now in the hour of our country's need: equal rights to all; special privilege to none.

Equal rights to all; special privilege to none." That is a clear statement of values anyone can remember.

The 1948 platform is a bit longer--although you still don't need to download a 54-page PDF file to read it-- but its values are unambiguous:
We chart our future course as we charted our course under the leadership of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman in the abiding belief that democracy—when dedicated to the service of all and not to a privileged few—proves its superiority over all other forms of government.

In contrast the 2008 platform appears to have value statements scattered all over, some of them ambiguous, some wordy and some seemingly at odds with one another. First there is the verbose and grammatically-mangled (to "get" a good education?") first paragraph:
We come together at a defining moment in the history of our nation. America is the country that led the 20th Century, built a thriving middle class, defeated fascism and communism, and provided bountiful opportunity to many. We Democrats have a special commitment to this promise of America. We believe that each American, whatever their background or station in life, should have the chance to get a good education, to work at a good job with good wages, to raise and provide for a family, to live in safe surroundings, and to retire with dignity and security. We believe that quality and affordable health care is a basic right. We believe that each succeeding generation should have the opportunity, through hard work, service and sacrifice, to enjoy a brighter future than the last.

Then we find another statement on line 15 of page 2:
Today, we pledge a return to core moral principles like stewardship, service to others, personal responsibility, shared sacrifice and a fair shot for all –values that emanate from the integrity and optimism of our Founders and generations of Americans since.

Finally, there is a third values paragraph at the top of page 3:
Today, America must unite again –to help our most vulnerable residents get back on their feet and to restore the vitality of both urban centers and family farms –because the success of each depends on the success of the other. And America must challenge us again –to serve our country and to meet our responsibilities –whether in our families or local governments; our civic organizations or places of worship. We must act in the knowledge that each of us has a stake in our neighbors’ dreams and struggles, as well as our own, and recognize the dignity in each of us.

The first paragraph is closest to those of 1908, 1932 and 1948. The addition of health care as a separate sentence and the only issue listed as a basic right not only reads badly, but singles out one area when in fact all are important. The final paragraph about succeeding generations could easily have been cut out or incorporated in the other two. Here is one attempt at a rewrite:
At this defining moment we look back upon what the world views as the American Century, during which this nation won two world wars and the Cold War, conquered the Great Depression, put a man on the moon, and provided more prosperity for a larger percentage of its citizens than any nation in history. We Democrats celebrate this promise of America because it was Democrats who made it happen. Like the great Democratic leaders who defined and transformed the twentieth century, we believe that every American, whatever their background or station in life, should have the opportunity to receive a quality education, to work at a meaningful job with good wages, to raise a family whose needs are provided for, to live in safe surroundings, to receive the world's best health care and to retire with dignity and security, knowing the next generation shall enjoy a brighter future than the last.

Unfortunately the force of this paragraph is diluted by an entirely different set of principles later in the preamble, many of them ambiguous buzzwords--stewardship, service--the tone of which evokes some favorite Republican code words that have been used as far back as the early twentieth century to justify a position that government does not have an obligation to keep the playing field level. Just ask yourself how will stewardship, service, and personal responsibility solve the mortgage crisis.

Finally we come to the third paragraph, which is the worst of them all. It tries to have it both ways in the long-running dispute between more or less government and only succeeds in muddying the issue even more than it already is--which is not easy.

So in the end, take your pick of which Democratic Party you want: a, b or c. Frankly, b and c would not be out of place in a Republican Platform, if only because they are so nebulous. When the Democratic Party puts on its show for the networks pay careful attention to which of these three emerges or if the delegates are unable to make up their minds. By putting their candidate in such a difficult position this platform committee has substantially upped the stakes for his speech.

All this is not helped by John McCain's recent moves to paint himself as the original maverick and take away what had been Obama's territory. The strategy is becoming clearer: the McCain campaign will seek to show their candidate is the original change agent. Obama's choice of Joe Biden as his running mate may shore up the campaign's foreign policy weaknesses, but instead of distancing himself from Washington, it puts Obama right in the center of it. If McCain, as expected, chooses Mitt Romney as his running mate he will have performed yet another remarkable metamorphosis, turning Barack Obama into the establishment candidate.

Meanwhile if Hillary Clinton continues her lukewarm support and adds to it disappoitment over the Vice Presidency, it will inflict a deep wound on Obama. I predict Hillary will saddle Bill with sounding the trumpets for Obama while she will continue to provide only token support.

At the center of all this is the platform. Reading it I am not sure any more what a Democrat is. If I am not sure what a Democrat is then I--and many others--are not sure they are Democrats.

Having said that, I still prefer the Democrats' mushiness to the alternative of having the rapier-like verbal preciseness of another Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Cour

Labels: