How's the Progressive Caucus progressing?
Seventy-one members of Congress, all Democrats, most House Members, two Senators, belong to the Congressional Progressive Caucus. For a couple of years now, the CPC has had a staff person. More recently it created a website http://cpc.lee.house.gov
Since most of the positions generally labeled progressive are backed by either a majority or a large minority of Americans, it certainly seems useful to have at least a small minority in Congress pushing for them. If anything good is ever to come out of Congress, this seems a likely source for it.
The CPC operates from within the Democratic Party, and that party is now in the majority. So, the question arises: what influence does the CPC have with the rest of its party or with Republicans, and what goals will it attempt to achieve?
Since most of the positions generally labeled progressive are backed by either a majority or a large minority of Americans, it certainly seems useful to have at least a small minority in Congress pushing for them. If anything good is ever to come out of Congress, this seems a likely source for it.
The CPC operates from within the Democratic Party, and that party is now in the majority. So, the question arises: what influence does the CPC have with the rest of its party or with Republicans, and what goals will it attempt to achieve?
A measure of morality in Congress
If you could secretly tell a magic genie "Yes" and receive a million dollars but cause the deaths of a million people you've never met in China, would you say No? This is no longer just a philosophical brain teaser. The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote Friday morning on funding for a war that has already caused the deaths of possibly as many as a million Iraqis. Some of the money might very well go to funding an attack on another nation (Iran). Many members of Congress are expected to vote Yes in order to keep their committee chairmanships, or in order to receive funding for projects in their districts, or in order to receive assistance or not face opposition in their next reelection campaigns. Among the most principled few who are holding out and voting No, some of them are encouraging others to vote Yes.
Let Rove lie
I think Karl Rove should be permitted to testify to Congress in private, without taking any oath, and without any record being kept of what he says. I had hoped we could avoid the indecency of having to spell out the reason why, but apparently we can't. So please remember this and then never say it aloud again: he wants to lie. Sssshhh. There, we said it. And you're making it very difficult for him, and that's not very nice or respectful.
Progressives stand strong against funding war
As I was walking across Memorial Bridge a young man I know ran up to me.
He's a veteran of this war and a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War.
After saying hello and a few words, he burst into tears. He said he had
just been spat on, and it had just hit him what that meant. The people
who spat on him were part of a relatively tiny group of pro-war
demonstrators. The young man I was talking to did not spit back at them.
He joined a group of other vets for peace and led the march to the
Pentagon nonviolently.
The leaders of the marches for peace care what the war supporters think of them. The reverse is also true. The pro-war demonstrators were not executives of weapons and oil companies cynically promoting their own profits. Many of them were aging veterans of a previous war that had sent them into the horrors of death and violence for previous power and profit motives that they do not want to think about.
The leaders of the marches for peace care what the war supporters think of them. The reverse is also true. The pro-war demonstrators were not executives of weapons and oil companies cynically promoting their own profits. Many of them were aging veterans of a previous war that had sent them into the horrors of death and violence for previous power and profit motives that they do not want to think about.
Why the progressive caucus should vote no on war money
The Supplemental spending bill proposed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi funds the war. It gives Cheney and Bush roughly another $100 billion. And you can be quite sure they will spend it as they choose, which may include attacking Iran. In fact, a measure in the bill requiring Bush to get Congress's approval before attacking Iran (an attack that would violate the US Constitution and the UN charter) has been removed.
The bill also requires Iraq to turn much of its oil profits over to foreign corporations. This illegally rewards the Bush and Cheney gang for their illegal war.
Beyond that, the bill does a number of things to nudge Bush in the direction of limiting the war, but most of them are for show.
The bill also requires Iraq to turn much of its oil profits over to foreign corporations. This illegally rewards the Bush and Cheney gang for their illegal war.
Beyond that, the bill does a number of things to nudge Bush in the direction of limiting the war, but most of them are for show.
It all started with an American Taliban
It began with that monstrous young man so evil we needed to blindfold him and strap him to a board, that confusing young man who looked like Christ but cast us in the role of crucifiers, that treasonous young man who brought dark and heathen evils across linguistic and cultural borders and brought torture onto the list of accepted government actions.
Fraudulent firings
They just wanted to protect the sanctity of the vote. That’s the administration’s pious explanation for why they fired eight U.S. Attorneys who were Republican enough for Bush to have appointed them in the first place.
"The president recalls hearing complaints about election fraud not being vigorously prosecuted and believes he may have informally mentioned it to the attorney general,” explained White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.
How could you question such a laudable goal?
Of course the justifications keep shifting, as with the Iraqi war. First it was the general performance of the prosecutors. Then a preference for specific replacements. Now it’s concern for the democratic process.
"The president recalls hearing complaints about election fraud not being vigorously prosecuted and believes he may have informally mentioned it to the attorney general,” explained White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.
How could you question such a laudable goal?
Of course the justifications keep shifting, as with the Iraqi war. First it was the general performance of the prosecutors. Then a preference for specific replacements. Now it’s concern for the democratic process.
How about a little democracy for a change?
"Revolution is the Solution"
For several days I had been bedeviled by the recurring memory of a jingle from an out-dated television commercial. My recollection of the product they were promoting lay tantalizingly close to the edge of my consciousness, but remained stubbornly out of my reach.
So my "mind's ear" was left listening to, "It's time for a new beginning." ad nauseam with no tangible context. (If I had had that, I would at least have known which company to despise for etching such an inane little tune into my brain).
"Beautifully harmonized" by a group of sickeningly enthusiastic twenty somethings accompanied by music undoubtedly composed during the "Age of Aquarius", this little ditty molested my mind with more frequency than I care to recall.
For several days I had been bedeviled by the recurring memory of a jingle from an out-dated television commercial. My recollection of the product they were promoting lay tantalizingly close to the edge of my consciousness, but remained stubbornly out of my reach.
So my "mind's ear" was left listening to, "It's time for a new beginning." ad nauseam with no tangible context. (If I had had that, I would at least have known which company to despise for etching such an inane little tune into my brain).
"Beautifully harmonized" by a group of sickeningly enthusiastic twenty somethings accompanied by music undoubtedly composed during the "Age of Aquarius", this little ditty molested my mind with more frequency than I care to recall.
No mo money for war
The Democrats in Congress are doing less to oppose the war now that they have the majority than they did in the minority. While in the minority, Democrats in a sizable and growing number voted against funding more war. While in the minority, Democrats pushed hard for Resolutions of Inquiry into the lies that launched the war. While in the minority, Democrats in significant numbers signed onto a bill to create a preliminary investigation into grounds for impeachment. While in the minority, Democrats raised hell about the Republicans' failures to investigate or to stop the war, and Democrats campaigned for reelection and election of a majority, claiming they would have the powers to subpoena, to place under oath, and to end the war.
Only nonviolence will end the war
On March 17, a huge mass of people will gather at the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, D.C., and march from there to the Pentagon for the cause of impeachment and peace.
http://www.impeach07.org
A handful of pro-war people, some volunteer and some probably paid to be there, will stage a counter-demonstration. This relatively tiny pro-death contingent will garner 50 percent of the media coverage if those on the side of peace do everything right. If a single demonstrator for peace turns violent in any way, that story will take up far more than 50 percent of the news, and that news will hurt the cause of peace and justice.
A handful of pro-war people, some volunteer and some probably paid to be there, will stage a counter-demonstration. This relatively tiny pro-death contingent will garner 50 percent of the media coverage if those on the side of peace do everything right. If a single demonstrator for peace turns violent in any way, that story will take up far more than 50 percent of the news, and that news will hurt the cause of peace and justice.