Conservatives' attitude: insensitive to victims, insulting to Americans.

For the second day in a row I randomly switch to MSNBC's Scarborough Country. By some coincidence both times I heard Joe Scarborough boasting about how much aid the U.S. is giving to tsunami survivors and how everyone is unfair to call them stingy. The “everyone” includes the usual suspects - the UN, NGOs, bureaucrats, elitist media and liberals. The latest center of Joe's attention was today's New York Times editorial titled "Are we stingy? Yes"
It was extremely amusing to hear him go on and on about how NYT doesn’t understand that there is no magical pile of money available somewhere, but it is all taxpayers’ money, paid by people's taxes, from their pocket. He continued his "compassionate" monologue by assuring that we don't mind giving that money, but others need to understand that more we give more it is going to hurt taxpayers. "It is your money", he said looking into the camera. That is when the amusement turned quickly into disgust. It seemed that "taxpayers" or "your" were the key words, emphasized repeatedly. As if Joe was suggesting that it is not the government that is stingy, it is the people who would definitely disapprove of providing this help using their money. Not only this attitude is disrespectful to both the victims and the American people, it is absolutely unsubstantiated. Mr. Scarborough is neglecting to clarify that this unbelievably generous amount of $35m translates into misley $0.12 per capita, when for a country like Australia (which pledges only $27m) that number is $1.45 per capita. The suggestion that 12 cents is all that Americans would give to help the victims of one of the biggest cataclysms in history is not only laughable, but outright insulting. It is impossible to imagine that when asked for help anyone in this country would reach into their pocket and recover slightly more than a dime. A buck, two, five or ten sounds much closer to the truth. I wonder if one asks Mr. Scarborough directly about the amount he personally is willing to give, what would he reply. I think we can safely assume the number to be in hundreds or in thousands. At only a dollar per capita the amount of aid would be around $300m or $100m if we only count a third of the population (excluding children, low and fixed income citizens). The amount goes up to $1 Billion if we consider $10 per capita.
I can't help but wonder why conservatives like Joe Scarbourugh would be so confident that linking the disaster aid to foreign countries to the pocketbooks of the people can justify the disappointing performance of the US as a donor. And it is unquestionably disappointing based on abundance of facts. I have no choice but think that Joe either did not actually read the editorial or he is deliberately misleading (shocking!) his viewers. The article contains cold facts, which would make it hard for him to claim that America is the all time highest donor or that it provides 40% of all the aid.

Mr. Powell pointed to disaster relief and said the United States "has given more aid in the last four years than any other nation or combination of nations in the world." But for development aid, America gave $16.2 billion in 2003; the European Union gave $37.1 billion. In 2002, those numbers were $13.2 billion for America, and $29.9 billion for Europe.
Making things worse, we often pledge more money than we actually deliver. Victims of the earthquake in Bam, Iran, a year ago are still living in tents because aid, including ours, has not materialized in the amounts pledged. And back in 2002, Mr. Bush announced his Millennium Challenge account to give African countries development assistance of up to $5 billion a year, but the account has yet to disperse a single dollar.

I suppose these facts were not worse mentioning as they would obstruct his elaborate and methodical attempt to frame this debate as another "left elitist conspiracy" to make the administration look bad. Ironically the editorial itself already addresses the question of limits to our willingness to give and makes Joe's "this is your money" argument irrelevant.

According to a poll, most Americans believe the United States spends 24 percent of its budget on aid to poor countries; it actually spends well under a quarter of 1 percent.

The taxpayers clearly think we spend lot more on aid and seem to be fine with that. This is just a small part of the statistical data that MSNBC's staff could have easily found if they bothered or cared to check. It is very easy to impress the viewers with big numbers and make them feel proud, if one hides the simple math from them and neglects to point out what an insignificant percentage of the budget the amount represents, especially in comparison to other countries. By the way, Joe must've missed the news about Britain trippling its aid to £50m, boosted by unprecedented £20m donation by the public in a single day.
No, Mr. Scarborough, it is not the people, but the government that seem to be unwilling to be big-hearted. The citizens of this nation are truly compassionate in a way that has nothing to do with hallow political slogans. They would be appalled to know how little of their money is really being sent to those poor victims that have just been through hell. Unfortunately, thanks to you many of them may never know that.

And PS: Talking about a pile of money, there is at least $40m being raised for inauguration. Wouldn’t it be really big of the president to send that money to the victims? It does after all sound more vital than just a big party...

Better to be ignorant, than to be Liberal?

Careful Not to Get Too Much Education...Or You Could Turn Liberal

Although this article is quite interesting it is not extremely surprising. We have heard so many times about the "evil and sinful" universities that corrupt the young minds into becoming, well ...liberal. There have been numerous discussions on why most of the faculty and students (at least graduate) lean to the left. However I never thought of students actually thinking about their chances to end up on the left or right. The conversation between a freshman and more senior student, described in this article, somewhat humors and alarms me at the same time.

"If you get a bachelors," the seasoned student reassured, "you'll probably be okay. But my professor said that when you get a master's, and definitely if you go beyond that, you can lose your values. He said that college students have to be watchful because if you get too much education, you could turn LIBERAL. He's seen it happen to a lot of good Christians."

Surprisingly we do not hear anyone asking about the reasons why more education results in liberal views. Call me presumptuous, but I would like to believe that we still live in a world where education is a "good think", which provides knowledge, develops thought and, shall we say, makes one smarter. Oh yes, I know the counter argument - it's not about being smart, but about biased professors that keep the truth (or the other side of it) from the youngsters. But even if we agree with that premise for a second, it still doesn't answer the question. If the other side was so credible it would be hard for those highly educated people to deny it. As for these two students, the choice for them seems to be clear - better not have Master's (even if it helps so much in current world) than risk becoming the “L” people. The fact that it doesn't even seem to matter why it could happen to them only proves the point - better to be ignorant, than liberal.

A look from the "very" left

Before it is all over and every possible reason and explanation of what happened on 11/2 is discussed, I would like to make sure that certain views from what is often called the extreme left are noted. The post-mortem articles presented variety of views, which I think were still limited by the prevailing paradigm of two-party reality. It is not customary to include the voices of those beyond the partisan ambitions, who subscribe to an ideology, rather than politics. It is true that people in that “corner” are often mocked or dismissed as being out of touch with reality - the hopeless romantics detached from the practical needs of the society. Or they are simply admired and respected from a "distance” as someone we certainly need but cannot afford. To be fair many of them are not exactly independent. They do subscribe to a clear ideology – socialism. That often results in even greater disregard to their views, as they perceived to be just “echoes from the past” or somehow discredited by now.
However, I do believe that the time for these attitudes is over. With every mainstream strategy and approach failing, it is time to realize that principles and ideas matter the most (powered by adequate communication and implementation). Activists across the country need to listen, if only out of curiosity, to those "pure" lefties, instead of being suspicious of their reluctance to back the Democratic Party. Especially when many would agree that the country is in desperate need for a third party, but most would shake their heads understanding that it is not an easy task. As much as I like to see it happen, I do not harbor any hopes of actually witnessing the rise of alternative party in foreseeable future. But that is precisely why the ones who dare to try it deserve our respect, not to mention our attention.
And there is indeed plenty to listen to. There are series of articles in the New Left Review. Alexander Cockburn writes in his article - THE YEAR OF SURRENDERING QUIETLY - about the overlapping stands of the two parties, repeatedly crashed dreams of the liberals, staunch opposition of the "status quo" insiders to the progressive candidates. Cockburn puts this all in a historic perspective.

Back in 1964, the Democratic convention that nominated Lyndon Johnson saw the party platform scorn the legitimate claim of Fannie Lou Hamer and her fellow crusaders in the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party to be the lawful Mississippi delegation. The black insurgents went down to defeat in a battle that remained etched in the political consciousness of those who partook in or even observed the fray. There was political division, the bugle blare and sabre slash of genuine struggle. At the Chicago convention of 1968 there was still a run against lbj, albeit more polite in form, with Eugene McCarthy’s challenge. McCarthy’s call for schism was an eminently respectable one, from a man who had risen through the us Senate as an orthodox Democratic Cold War liberal.
Four years later, when George McGovern again kindled the anti-war torch, the party’s established powers, the labour chieftains and the money men, did their best to douse his modest smoulder, deliberately surrendering the field to Richard Nixon, for whom many of them voted

He traces this development to the nineties and he certainly pulls no punches:

The fiercest political fighting of the 1980s saw Democratic party leaders and pundits ranged shoulder to shoulder against the last coherent left-populist campaign to be mounted within the framework of the Democratic Party: that of Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition. As JoAnn Wypijewski pithily resumes Clinton’s payback to the Rainbow forces:

By a brisk accounting of 1993 to 2000, the black stripe of the Rainbow got the Crime Bill, women got ‘welfare reform’, labour got nafta, gays and lesbians got the Defence of Marriage Act. Even with a Democratic Congress in the early years, the peace crowd got no cuts in the military; unions got no help on the right to organize; advocates of dc statehood got nothing (though statehood would virtually guarantee two more Democratic Senate seats and more representation in the House); the single-payer crowd got worse than nothing. Between Clinton’s inaugural and the day he left office, 700,000 more persons were incarcerated, mostly minorities; today one in eight black men is barred from voting because of prison, probation or parole.

Tom Mertes takes more practical view of the election outcome and the ideological shifts among the voters in the subsequent issue of NLR. In his article titled “A REPUBLICAN PROLETARIAT” he devotes his time to yet another look of Thomas Frank's "What’s the Matter with Kansas". This review may, nonetheless, differ slightly from many published earlier. Mertes points out that "American liberals have had trouble believing that the blue-collar/corporate-capital alliance is really happening" and that:

The blue-collar Republican vote is explained away as ‘crypto-racism, or a disease of the elderly, or the random griping of religious rednecks, or the protests of “angry white men”’

The critique of the "centrist compromise" is also offered by Lance Selfa of ISR. The 2000 article - "Eight Years of Clinton-Gore: The Price of Lesser-Evilism" - adds another voice to the chorus of disappointed liberals that believe that Clinton did push the party too much to the right. The author suggests that the price paid for that presidential victory was undoubtedly too high. Mike Davis provides another opinion about the result of this election in his column in UK's Socialist Review, by taking a closer look to West Virginia. And we can always count on eloquent and undeniably logical opinion of Noam Chomsky about the elections in U.S.
These are certainly only few examples of works by authors and thinkers on the "extreme" left. One can find more material by expanding a search beyond traditional boundaries. Diversity of opinions and open-minded approach is vital for the success of the liberal forces in the future. It is not the name of the party that matters, but the ideals it cherishes.

The Social Security Battle

Articles/Information
Time Magazine:Taking on Social Security
New York Times Magazine:A Question Of Numbers (re-posted on a conservative web-page with counter-comments bellow)

And more about the future and coalitions

A Gathering Swarm

Now when we see fewer and fewer post-mortems and discussions on what and why went wrong it is time to start noticing the analyses of future outlook. There have been numerous questions asked about the future of all the groups that played such an important role in this election cycle. I remember nervously hitting refresh button on MoveOn.org or ACT pages as if I was looking for some new calls for action, or perhaps a simple reassurance that they are going to stay and continue their work. But the frustration was probably too high immediately after the election and it took few more days or weeks before we started getting notices from these groups while they were re-assessing their condition and future plans.
It has been suggested that the Republican victory would have really positive impact on the forces of the left. Ironically enough, it is clear by now that the president became truly unifying power for the fragmented liberal and progressive sections, more than anything else in recent history. As the article notes:

In this, Bush accomplished something remarkable: He coaxed the two divergent strands of the left, or liberalism, or progressivism, or whatever you want to call it, into the same insurgent republic and opened up the prospect of a historic resurrection. He convinced old-school Democratic wheelhorses and newly inspired activists, old pros and young amateurs, union faithful and vote mobbers, that if they did not hang together they would most assuredly hang separately.

Coalitions were forged not only among the activists, but also among wealthy liberal donors, who impressed by Rob Stein's "power-point presentation" embarked on building financial machinery to counter the one built by the right during past three decades. The names of Soros, Lewis and Rapaport started appearing in the press more and more in conjunction with the "Phoenix Group" or "Band of the Progressives". The future of this enterprise in the event of Democratic victory was also questioned.
This article from Mother Jones picks up that thought and tries to expand the discussion. The author provides some history on collaboration (or lack there of) between core liberal movements and ideological groups.

Call these two forces the machine and the movement. Since the 1960s, the enfeebled Democratic machine and the marginal movement left had encountered each other -- if at all -- with acrid suspicion. They cracked apart 40 years ago, when college students who distrusted power went south to join blacks in overturning white supremacy while Chicago's Mayor Daley, a believer in power if nothing else, led his white, working-class base in fighting against Martin Luther King, and, later, against those same students as they revolted against the war in Vietnam. Because the Democratic Party didn't manage to amalgamate old and new politics -- cut to footage of Mayor Daley's gleeful cops smashing away at long-haired demonstrators -- it was crushed by the law-and-order alliance of old Republicans and resentful segregationists.

That certainly sounded as a far cry from what happened this time around:

So, in 2004, a vast and ragged regeneration movement met a Democratic Party straining to be reborn, and the two forces, instead of looking askance at each other and wondering how best to beat each other into dust, decided to buddy up, not only to reinvent politics -- no small task in itself -- but, really, to redeem America (although this movement's language, unlike the other side's, was rarely comfortable with that sort of religious lingo).

Some more on the future of liberal groups

Salon.com News The revolution that failed -- for now

Lot has been sad and written about what went wrong or why didn't the great voter mobilization resulted in success. Groups like ACT and MoveOn have been quickly dismissed by some, but still congratulated by others. It all depended on the angle from which one reviews the election results and the final statistics. It is also important whether one searches for deeper analysis or simply engages in finger-pointing. Writers like Dan Savage offered condolences and suggested that now Liberals Are the New Gays. The blogosphere is by now full of discussions and responses to Peter Beinart's infamous piece in TNR, where he isn’t too kind to liberal advocacy groups and blogger warriors.
Continuing this debate or rather expanding the analysis Farhad Manjoo of Salon.com offers extensive look at successes and failures of 527's and other "People Power" groups.
He argues that:

There's much to criticize about ACT, MoveOn, and the constellation of liberal groups that attracted so much attention and so many volunteers, and raised so much money and so many hopes, in the months before the election. They certainly weren't the silver bullet. But many critics are too quick to dismiss the very real successes of the advocacy groups, the political, financial, logistical and emotional achievements that were required to bring hundreds of thousands of volunteers and paid staffers into battleground states, and to use these people in a way that boosted turnout.

And as a result we could see amazing changes in the political landscape. Manjoo continues:

Yes, John Kerry lost. But an amazing thing happened this year -- grass-roots activism, online and in the real world, invaded the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. Ordinary people, folks who'd never before expressed the slightest interest in politics, suddenly developed an abiding enthusiasm for the game. And personal contact, the online connections and the doorstep conversations of millions of citizens, became a primary method of campaigning.

Rumsfeld was asked about the armor seven month ago

Salon.com | Rumsfeld, the bungler
Joe Conason writes in Salon.com that Rumsfeld was asked a similar question regarding the armor by a soldier seven month ago during his visit to Baghdad. We may remember that it was bad time for him as he was in a midst of the prison scandal, so he decided to take a road trip to improve his image. Apparently there was a town-hall style meeting after the great photo-op, where the question was asked. Rumsfeld reportedly referred the question to Gen. Myers after hearing that the soldier had a "force protection" question.
As Conason writes:

The soldier stumbled and mumbled in his question but the meaning was plain enough: "Sir, my unit, the 2nd Brigade -- (inaudible) -- Cav[alry], we have five out of the six red zones in this country. And with the up-armored Humvees, the new -- (off mike) -- Humvees they're bringing over with the -- (inaudible) -- those doors are not as good as the ones on the up-armored Humvees (inaudible). We even lost quite -- we lost some soldiers due to them, and we're trying to make a change -- (inaudible). The question is, are we going to get more up-armored Humvees?"

Myers didn't seem to offer much except for uplifting rhetoric, which if of' course if true would eliminate the need for the soldiers to have similar concerns now. However seven month later the problems were not resolved.

If his competence matched his confidence, Rumsfeld would not only have investigated but acted months ago to improve "force protection" in Iraq. It is amazing indeed that as the war drags on toward its second anniversary, and as the lack of planning for the occupation continues to take a terrible toll on our men and women along with the Iraqi people, this man remains in the job he has bungled so badly.

One more step on the road to justice

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Pinochet indicted on human rights charges

Chilean judge finds Pinochet's health not to be a problem for the trial. The Guardian reports that the aging former dictator was charged over kidnapping of nine and killing of one dissident. The charges come amid new information coming form the armed forces regarding brutal practices during Pinochet's dictatorship.

Judge Guzman is investigating the so-called "Operation Condor," a scheme by the dictatorships that ruled several South American nations in the 1970s and 80s to suppress dissidents.

The decision is being appealed on the same grounds as in 2001, namely Pinochet's poor health. Hence the fate of the trial is currently unclear. Nonetheless this is an important step towards final reconciliation and much delayed justice.

Looking closer to 2004 Election Map

I have already posted few post election articles that point out to silver linings of recent election. Many observers argued that despite the losses on the federal it is difficult to ignore the progressive achievements on state and local levels.
The state of Colorado has become the ultimate proof of that, where Republicans lost both chambers of congress first time in more than 40 years. This development has undoubtedly worried many on the right. Hence the rush to claim that the efforts in that state were unsuccessful were premature and it will certainly be in play all the future elections.
But there are numerous other somewhat hidden and even obvious progressive victories across the country.
David Sorota points out this fact in his great article in The American Prospect, titled "The Democrats' Da Vinci Code"
He argues that:

Encrypted within the 2004 election map is the Democrats' road map to political divinity. It is time for the party's centrists to make way for the economic populists who racked up wins on Nov. 2

Do not Miss !

It was a great show today on Democracy Now!. You can access their daily programming using the permanent link on the left menu here. However I would like top post direct links to some clips from today's program. First one has Richard Clarke speaking at the New York Ethical Society event yesterday. As he describes it himself he was asked to do an impossible, namely to talk about what to do next about security of the country and do it in 15 minutes. Instead Clarke refers to the book released by The Centaury Foundation - "Defeating the Jihadists: A Blueprint for Action". It is also available for download (at least partially) at foundation's website. This is only a part of his speech, but I will try to search for the full video later.
If you continue watching the clip you will also hear Greg Palast, who spoke at the same event. He addressed the issues of massive voting irregularities in Ohio and what he calls "apartheid voting" in general. He largely repeats the facts he presented in his post- election article - "Kerry Won". You can get straight to his segment here.
Lastly you can also learn about the newly released documentary called "Weapons of Mass Deception", which documents the media's biased coverage of the Iraq War. Some excerpts are available on the website. Looks like another documentary people need to see.

The Ultimate Hypocrisy

It was last week when the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal against the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage. This was by no means surprising to any of the rational thinking observers. Although, people on both sides of the debate would probably like to hear some commentary from the Justices, if only to get some indication or comfort. However the appeal was rejected without a comment, leaving the parties involved in the decision to reorganize and strategize.
However the White House was quick to offer their response to the decision. Unfortunately there was nothing new in it, as they repeated the same line again. The white house press-secretary announced (with very sincere tone) the well-rehearsed statement about ensuring that the “voice of the people” is heard and the decision is not left to those crazy “activist judges”
It makes me wonder how many times do they need to repeat this for people to accept it as something self-evident. They are undoubtedly the masters of shaping perceptions and creating ambiguous social views. We all remember the “death tax”, “tax relief” or PATRIOT act. Nonetheless the hypocrisy is so evident in this case that it is almost unbearable to hear.
One should ask why by the “voice of the people” they are only referring one group of the population and seem to completely ignore the other group that supports the developments in Massachusetts. Somehow the voice of those people does not have any significance in their view. This proves once again that in addressing the “citizens” the administration is clearly talking to the “base”. There is no way to explain the blunt contradiction of their message, especially in reference to “activist judges”. Under their definition the history is full with examples of judicial activism. It often resulted in quite controversial decisions (some argued that Bush v. Gore decision in 2000 was a perfect example of judicial activism, so the irony is almost perfect here). But would they also call it activism the judicial decisions that ended segregation, discrimination or inequality on our society? It would be interesting to see those landmark decisions shrugged off as work of rogue “activist judges” (although I am sure many have done that).
The argument that the majority is against gay marriages is essentially irrelevant, as long as this is a civil rights issue. And there is no doubt the right to marry and take care of loved ones in life and make sure they are secure after one’s death is a an essential civil right. The majority was against de-segregation in the southern states that where in the center of the decisions mentioned above. Moreover the same majority was against racial equality in general. It doesn’t take much to imagine where we would be now if we would’ve followed the will of that majority.
Hence, the officials try to negate one of the true meanings of democracy where the minorities are protected against the tyranny of the majority. The government does what is right in principle and ensures the dignity and equality of all the citizens, regardless of the emotions, prejudices or discomfort of one group (even if it is the majority).
In any case this issue has also started a debate around the word “marriage” itself and it’s place in official state language. Some have proposed to move it completely to the religious domain and have “unions” for everyone. I would agree with this in principle and do believe it is the case in some other countries. However I am not sure whether it is better to change the word or try to clarify (or re-frame) it.
It also prompted revival of some older opinions about the reason for gays to marry at all (sarcastically speaking of’ course). Authors wonder if gays really want to go through he “misery” experienced by straight couples in marriage.
I am convinced that this is simply a matter of time (as selfish as it sound towards gays). The trends are going in that direction and as I explained earlier the fundamental principles of free society should leave no other alternative, but to recognize the self-evidence of these rights.

Looking Back, Looking Forward - A forum

Looking Back, Looking Forward
May find this informative.

Democrats are getting lessons from Lakoff

UC scholar to help Democrats refine message / Party is urged to control policy debate

It looks like George Lakoff's prominence grows faster and faster. For the first time Democrats are going to listen to his advice as a group. For those who were following Lakoff's writings this development is certainly very promising. I would only hope that this does not become a mechanical impulse or some sort of a script. In order for these tactics to succeed they must be natural and used simply as a communication tool for already existing ideas and views. Many would agree that he ideas are already there and have been there for quite some time, so that part of the system should be covered. We need to hope that every politician would adapt the techniques to their own style, while keep the underling approach intact. As Lakoff himself notes:

"You can't speak simply if people don't already have the issues you want to raise in mind"

What about Eliot Spitzer?

Eliot Spitzer 2006

Like many others I have been following the developments around Eliot Spitzer and his cases. And I too share a fascination with his mission or as some call it crusade. There has been much said about his motives and reasons for picking high profile cases. It was, we hard, driven by aspirations for a higher office - Governor of New York state. In this cynical and materialistic world I actually had the same expression when I first read about Spitzer, without even hearing the skepticism of others. I thought he must be going for something bigger; why else would he pick these big fights. At the same time I could not help but respect what he was doing and secretly hope that there are no ulterior motives. However very soon I realized that it doesn't even matter. Case is a case, and regardless of his next career he would have the impact now. I also saw him being serious at whatever he starts and not merely generate big headlines and forget about the case itself afterward. In any case, my admiration grew even stronger as soon as heard him giving a short speech. It was hard not like him and not appreciate his message. Not only he proved to be on the right side of the issues with a great message, but he seems to do great job communicating it. It was quite interesting to watch his profile on PBS's NOW with Bill Moyers, where he was presented as the champion of progressive issues. The link above is dedicated to his "unspecified" 2006 campaign, although it is widely expected that he will be running for NY governorship (especially after Sen. Schumer announced that he will not be seeking that office). We should all wish him all the luck and hope for his victory. Interestingly enough some started comparing the beginning of his campaign to that if Howard Dean. That might be true, in which case he should pace himself... In any case I believe many would agree that Eliot Spitzer is exactly who can help the Democrats, and is unquestionably great asset for the progressives. And most importantly - he gets it:

With our values and policies, Democrats have been on the right track for a long time. We champion the ideals held most dear by working families, but we simply didn't articulate campaign issues in the context of those ideals. Instead, we let the Republicans employ wedge issues like gay marriage that diverted attention from their failed domestic policies.

We can't repeat these mistakes in 2008. Starting today, our party must focus on all the difficulties that working people face--from financial scams to job security to health insurance, from day care for our kids to nursing homes for our parents, from the price of gas to the increasing cost of college tuition, from the safety and security of our neighborhoods to the health of the environment. We must address these issues not as antiseptic policy points but as elements of a living mosaic that, together, form a society that rewards hard work and integrity. Our policies and plans will gain traction with the public when we frame them as a reflection of the core values we believe in.

Same old Conservatives. Someone is always the enemy

Joe Conason provides a good review of how not much really changed in the way conservatives think or act for past decades. It is especially true when it comes to blaming someone and finding the "enemies of the state" - external or internal. It is always someone else's fault, not their misjudgment. It should be obvious for everyone by now that there is not much "neo" to neo-conservatives, but lot of recycled or once obscured ideas. We have already read about how the organized, focused and well-financed effort by this group allowed moving "nonexistent" conservative idea to the mainstream of our lives and male it part of the wide spread perceptions. We need to remember these ideas where build on the shoulders of only few thinkers at that time and would continue to be overshadowed by more widespread and robust ideology on the left in the 60's. That is of' course why they spread the Tentacles of Rage and push their noise machine into full throttle. As we can read in the current days:

Neocons need somebody to blame other than themselves for the Iraq debacle -- so now they're going after the United Nations.

Please click "More" to read the re-post of the article.

Dec. 3, 2004 If American conservatism is truly the fount of "new ideas," as its publicists incessantly assure us, why do conservatives constantly promote the stale old ideas that obsessed them in 1962?

Back then, the extremists of the ultra-right regarded the United Nations as the advance guard of the international communist conspiracy. "Get the U.S. out of the U.N. and the U.N. out of the U.S.!" blared the bumper-sticker slogan of the John Birch Society, while the National Review called for the U.N. to be "liquidated."
Today, although the rhetoric is not quite so shrill, the Birch Society's ideological descendants still feel the same way. With the U.N. beset by scandal, the right can't resist the opportunity to sever American ties with the world organization. Heedless as always of damaging traditional alliances and America's global reputation, they have opened a campaign to undermine and ultimately destroy the U.N. It is a peculiar crusade for Americans to undertake just when the U.S. government is counting on the U.N. to help legitimize the Iraqi elections -- the kind of multilateral mission that is becoming even more essential on a planet where failed states threaten the security of everyone.
For the moment, conservative critics are focused on U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. They've demanded his resignation as punishment for corruption and mismanagement of Iraq's "oil-for-food" program. Designed to ease economic sanctions on the Iraqi people by allowing oil to be traded for food and medicine, the program fell prey to exploitation by Saddam Hussein during the final years of his dictatorship. From newspaper investigations, it is clear that Saddam used the program to enrich himself and to import illicit items -- and that various companies and political figures in Russia, France, China and the United States, among others, profited along with the dictator.

The most embarrassing revelations for the secretary general involve his son Kojo, who enjoyed a lucrative, conflict-ridden consulting contract with Cotecna, a Swiss firm accused of abetting Saddam's abuse of the oil deals. That has prompted Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., who chairs a Senate committee investigating the scandal, to urge Annan to quit. That demand is now echoing around Congress and the conservative media, from the Wall Street Journal to Fox News to the cover of the National Review.

An American politician denouncing legalized bribery and conflict of interest sounds mildly ridiculous to anyone familiar with Washington's campaign financing system (and the most recent adventures of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay). But Coleman's assault on Annan would be premature and demagogic even if it weren't so hypocritical.

Last April, the secretary general appointed Paul Volcker, a former Federal Reserve Bank chairman whose integrity has never been questioned, to oversee an internal investigation of the oil-for-food program. Annan has cooperated with the probe, and Volcker recently promised to release the evidence he has gathered early next year. But Coleman and the Annan-bashing claque can't wait until then.

Behind the attacks on Annan lies the broader purpose of bringing down the U.N. itself. Once praised by the likes of former Sen. Jesse Helms for implementing fiscal reform, the secretary general provoked deep enmity on the right by opposing the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and by criticizing its illegality again last September during the U.S. presidential campaign. Worse yet, U.N. inspectors made the terrible mistake of being correct about the nonexistent "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq.

For the Bush administration and its conservative allies, the U.N. represents embarrassment and obstruction. Seeing no value in debating and discussing world problems with lesser nations, they regard the U.N. as nothing but an unworthy obstacle to the exercise of American power. To them, the world body symbolizes all that they hate about multilateralism and diplomacy.

Certain starry-eyed neoconservatives broach the idea of a new global organzation that would only admit "legitimate" democratic governments (as defined, perhaps, by the Heritage Foundation or the Wall Street Journal editorial board). In the neocon scenario, the U.N. would be hollowed into a meaningless, impoverished shell, and left to such pariahs as Kim Jong Il and the Iranian mullahs.

As fantasy, this explains much about the mind-set of the neoconservative right in the aftermath of the Iraq debacle. They need somebody to blame, other than themselves, and Annan provides a most convenient target. As policy, however, the abandonment of the U.N. is just as crazy as when the John Birch Society printed its first bumper sticker -- as the neocons might acknowledge if they listened to our closest allies.

Responding to the latest attacks on Annan, the British government did not hesitate to affirm its support for him and for the multilateral system that he symbolizes. On this issue the rest of the world, legitimate, democratic and otherwise, echoes Britain.

Most of the world's nations believe that the U.N. needs to be reformed to deal with the problems of the new century, not ruined to satisfy ideologues in Washington. Thanks to a distinguished panel convened by the secretary general, important reforms are on the table, although the panel's report is overshadowed for the moment by scandal. Its proposals will remain on the world's agenda in the months to come because there is, in fact, no realistic alternative to the U.N. despite its flaws.

Meanwhile Kofi Annan and his aides may eventually have to answer for the corruption uncovered on their watch, but they are entitled to due process and a full examination of the facts. More important, the fate of Annan should have no effect on America's commitment to the U.N. The politicians trying to railroad him -- and to wreck the organization he leads -- will only succeed in isolating the U.S. again, at a moment when we should be seeking to rebuild our damaged alliances.

What was lunacy in 1962 is no saner now.

More Creative Solutions. Hit them where it hurts.

Choose The Blue

This site can be helpful to a certain degree and undoubtedly educational./ It list various companies and their brands providing information about partisan nature of their campaign contributions. If approach in an organized manner, this may undoubtedly become a notable leverage. Consumers after all are the ultimate driver of profit decisions. I would venture a guess that there may be more consumerss in the "blue part of the country".

Small, but important, win for free-speech and equality

t r u t h o u t - Campuses Allowed to Bar Military Recruiters

It instinctively sounded unfair, when we learned that universities must allow military recruiters, because of the risk of loosing federal funding. The university principles and the feelings of most of the students were declared irrelevant. I remember few years back the students at Yale staged a massive protest of Pentagon’s policy towards Gays and Lesbians and expressed their displeasure with the presence of the recruiters. It all was viewed as a formality. Well, not any longer, as the federal court agreed with the universities and declared that they cannot be forced to jeopardize their free-speech principles and be "blackmailed' into keeping quite. Apparently it was also an obscure clause inserted in "No child left behind" act that also granted free access of recruiters to the High Schools. I hope this decision will affect this terrible policy as well. I heard many upset parents that were frustrated by the fact that they cannot stop the recruiters from going after their kinds while there at school.