Better Than Machines

Any Stick Will Do

2011-11-12T12:07:00.002-05:00

There are now Occupy encampments in the center of every major city of the United States.

So given that murders and other crimes inevitably happen in these cities, the corporate press has taken to reporting in its headlines things like, "Man Killed Near Occupy Protest," as though there is a connection between the two events other than things that are happening in big cities right now.

There might as well be headlines reading:

"Skyscraper Going Up Near Occupy Camp," as though the protesters had built it;

"Sewage Construction Begins 3 Blocks From Occupiers," as though the protesters had planned it;

"Cold Front Moves In After Occupiers Demand 'Tax The Rich,'" as though the gods were angry with the protesters.

The 1%, and the establishment that serves them, have failed at other ploys to marginalize the Occupy movement. This is just their latest lame attempt.

When in doubt, kill 'em anyway.

2011-09-22T17:43:00.002-04:00

Despite 7 of 9 prosecution eyewitnesses changing their stories after the trial and one of the remaining witnesses bragging that actually he committed the murder, Troy Davis was killed last night at 11:08pm by lethal injection. Welcome to America, where you are presumed executed until proven innocent. You can bet that Rick Perry would be proud and that an audience at a Republican presidential debate would applaud wildly (see this article if you don't get the connection).

We've become a nation of bumbling idiot executioners. Is there strong evidence of your innocence? We'll execute you anyway. Were you a juvenile at the time of your crime? We'll execute you anyway. Are you mentally retarded? We'll execute you anyway. And then your governor will say he's proud of it and run for president as "tough on crime."

For some international perspective, here are the world's top ten executioner countries based on total number of executions in 2010:

1. China

2. Iran

3. North Korea

4. Yemen

5. United States

6. Saudi Arabia

7. Libya

8. Syria

9. Bangladesh

10. Somalia

What great company we keep! Right up there with the world's most brutal and grisly regimes, even putting Saudi Arabia to shame.

Here are Troy Davis' last words, as he was strapped down on the gurney last night in Georgia:

I'd like to address the MacPhail family. Let you know, despite the situation you are in, I'm not the one who personally killed your son, your father, your brother. I am innocent.

The incident that happened that night is not my fault. I did not have a gun. All I can ask ... is that you look deeper into this case so that you really can finally see the truth.

I ask my family and friends to continue to fight this fight.

For those about to take my life, God have mercy on your souls. And may God bless your souls.

I was out in front of the US Supreme Court last night with a couple hundred people when it was reported that the execution was going forward and then when it was reported that Davis was dead. There was stunned silence. And a realization that the world is an even darker place than we had thought.

If I Were A Betting Man

2011-08-15T02:28:00.003-04:00

One of the sites I check compulsively each day is Intrade.com. I like to look at the political prediction markets, which give what are essentially the market-determined odds of someone winning an election or a bill passing. I've been watching Obama's odds of re-electio n for a while now. After Osama bin Laden was killed, they temporarily jumped up to about 70%. The odds stayed above 60% for most of June but then began a slow slide down to around 56%. In August, the numbers plummeted to around 50%. And for a couple of days at the end of last week, for the first time, the market was predicting Obama would probably not be re-elected, with his odds at 49%. (As of this writing it's at 50.5%.)

It's fun to watch how the news affects the numbers, but let me tell you why I think Obama is still a good bet: The Field of Republican Candidates.

First of all, I think there are only three candidates with decent shots of winning the nomination: Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann. I think the primary will boil down to Romney, who seems to have lots of establishment support, versus an anti-Romney candidate who will have the Tea Party and the Religious Right. I think Perry will end up being the anti-Romney candidate. And I think Perry will be the nominee. Romney disappoints too many people on the right, whereas everyone on the right can find something they like in Rick Perry. He executes innocent people, is literally crazy about guns, kicks thousands of kids off S-CHIP insurance, champions a low-wage high-polluting economy, isn't very bright, and has ties to the neo-Confederate movement. What's not to like?

But it's not just that Perry is too far right to win the general election, it's that he will have to move farther right and put his wing-nuttiness on display for the next six months in order to win the nomination. That could be quite a display, because the Republican Party has moved even farther away from mainstream America in the last several years.

For example, remember how George W. Bush used to call himself a compassionate conservative? He knew he needed to present a humane side to independents and moderates to balance out his right-wingery. Republican politicians today don't give a damn about that! If a candidate brought up "compassion" in a Republican presidential debate, one of the other candidates would whack him over the head with some Ayn Rand quote about compassion being the utmost evil. They wear nastiness as a badge of honor now. They no longer talk about just "reforming" Social Security and Medicare. Rick Perry says Social Security and Medicare should be repealed. Even with unemployment above 9%, today's Republicans want to eliminate unemployment insurance altogether. Why? "Because it makes people lazy." Oh, and according to today's Republican orthodoxy, global warming is a hoax and the Earth is 6,000 years old. That's the party in which Rick Perry has to appeal to the most rabid activists.

All the while, Obama will be "negotiating" and looking for "grand bargains" with the House Republicans and generally looking like a reasonable and good intentioned (if weak) problem solver. That won't excite people on the left like me, and it certainly won't get the economy back on track. But it will allow him to pitch himself to a very broad swath of the electorate in 2012.

Of course there are still questions. Will left activists be so depressed that they don't turn out and volunteer? Will the economy be so bad that independents are willing to try anyone else, even Perry? We will see. But for now, if I had any cash laying around, I would be buying "Barack Obama to be re-elected Preside nt i n 2012" at Intrade.

Where To Begin?

2011-08-11T20:15:00.001-04:00

First of all, here's the reason I haven't been blogging lately.

Careful. He's a little Wobbly!

This is Gabriel. He is two and a half weeks old, fat, happy, alert, and now sleeping somewhat through the night.

Wow. These past few weeks have been a sleep-deprived blur. But it looks like I picked a good time to tune out of politics for a little while. Because when I did periodically log in for a news update, I saw a glimpses of what looked like a freak show:

-- President Obama and the Democrats allowed Republicans to redefine a routine legislative formality (raising the "debt ceiling") as an epic struggle all about cutting spending on government services. Any talk of, you know, ending the historically low tax rates for the wealthy to help pay the nation's bills was quickly shut down, reminding us once again who really rules our politics. And any talk of, you know, stimulating the economy and creating jobs was quickly shut down, because the GOP needs a stagnant economy to beat Obama in 2012. Democrats let Republicans pick a fight on ground of their choosing, setting the tone of the national debate for weeks and weeks just as 2012 election fever was beginning. Then, Democrats rolled over on their key demands while acting like Republican demands were sacred and could not be touched.

-- A more extremist version of George W. Bush rose to near front-runner status for the Republican nomination.

-- Another extremist looked like a lock to win the Iowa caucus.

-- The 16th largest company in America, though enjoying billions of dollars in profits, demanded sweeping pay and benefit cuts for its union employees, causing 45,000 workers to strike.

That's what I can pull out of my foggy memory right now. There was also something about crying and wailing in the night and urine flying through the air, but that might have been Gabriel. What else did I miss?

A Socialist Sunday

2011-07-10T23:35:00.008-04:00

My wife is 9 months pregnant with our first child, so we've been taking it pretty slow with our last few weekends.

On Saturday we were busy running errands, but I had Sunday off too, thanks to the labor movement, the folks who brought us the weekend. So on Sunday, the taxpayer-funded National Weather Service told us the weather was going to be nice, so we decided to hit the road. We took off on public highways built and maintained with Department of Transportation funding, buckled into seat belts which come standard now on all cars (Thanks Ralph Nader!). I should mention we were driving a car we bought during the federal government's "Cash for Clunkers" program, which helped us trade in our gas guzzling SUV for a fuel-efficient coupe, more than doubling our gas mileage. Our navigation was aided by a constellation of satellites developed, launched, and operated by the US Air Force.

We arrived at our destination in mid-afternoon: a large wilderness area owned and operated by the federal government with the help of local volunteers. It's the most beautiful scenery for miles around, and it hasn't been bought up and filled with McMansions like the land surrounding it. Everyone is welcome to enjoy it. This National Park was dedicated in 1936 by a president who would be called a socialist by mainstream commentators today, who said that every American had a right to a decent job with a living wage. Its roads, campgrounds, and picnic areas were built by newly employed young men in the government's Civilian Conservation Corps, supervised by the US Army, in one of the country's greatest public works projects ever. It was an era when a lot of people needed work and a lot of work needed to be done, so the government put two and two together and made it happen.

We headed over to one of the picnic areas to grill steaks, which we were confident were safe to eat, thanks to regulations enforced by the US Department of Agriculture. As it got dark, the clearing we were in was filled with thousands of fireflies, which are still around thanks to the EPA's enforcement of the Clean Air Act.

Now I'm back at home, on the Internet that was developed with Department of Defense money and research.

I guess what got me thinking about how "socialist" the whole day had been was our conversation during our walk on one of the trails. We talked a little about the debt ceiling negotiations between President Obama and the Republicans. Despite all the spending cuts offered by Obama, including Social Security cuts which Republicans themselves had not even suggested, Republicans will agree to no deal that includes raising any taxes. Never mind that the wealthy are currently enjoying the lowest tax rates in 80 years. Never mind that corporate profits are soaring while unemployment remains above 9%.

To today's Republicans, all taxes are bad and government can do nothing right. Laissez-faire has become a religion. Greed is good. If you're rich, it's because you earned it. If you're poor, it's because you're lazy. All that is holy in the world is the product of competition within "free markets." They say, "Privatize everything," which is code for, "All power to the big corporations." Anything that gets in the way, anything that puts the interests of people before the interests of corporate power, is called socialism.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to take out the trash before the Department of Public Works trucks come by to pick it up.

War in Libya? Let the People Decide

2011-06-16T07:57:00.001-04:00

This post is an echo of one I wrote in January 2009: War in Pakistan? Let the People Decide.

:::

There's somewhat of a showdow n brewi ng between the Obama administration and the Republican-led House over American military operations in Libya. Republicans argue that, according to the War Powers Act, Obama must seek Congressional authorization within 90 days of the beginning of hostilities in order to continue military involvement in Libya. Or else the operations must stop. Well, the 90-day deadline comes this weekend, and Obama has no intention of going to Congress with his Libya plans.

As the Times article linked above mentions, it is kind of ironic that we now have a Democratic president snubbing Republican congressional oversight in what is a borderline illegal abuse of executive authority. We got so used to it being the other way around.

The White House's argument is, essentially, that America's involvement in Libya does not rise to the level of war and therefore requires no congressional approval. There are no troops on the ground, American-manned aircraft have not bombed anything since April, and American personnel aren't in any real danger, they say. The US is "merely" providing logistical and intelligence support to allied operations and is using armed, unmanned drones.

The Obama administration is really splitting hairs here. If what the US is doing in Libya does not rise to the level of the "war powers" described by the act, then future presidents, acting on their own, are free to wage all-out war for 90 days and then shift to aerial bombardment and drone campaigns that continue indefinitely. Since this is what wars in the 21st Century are likely to look like, this precedent makes the War Powers Act pretty much irrelevant. No democratic oversight to speak of other than a campaign every four years. I don't know if what the administration is doing is illegal, but it's definitely antidemocratic.

Here's my simple proposal for the Libya question, the other countries where we are fighting wars of presidential decree (Pakistan and Yemen), and all future conflicts:

Require a joint resolution of Congress that declares war any time the US military is going to conduct operations that are more than a one-time strike.

It doesn't matter if the fighting is on the ground, in the air, at sea, or in space. And there should be no difference whether we're declaring war on a government, a terrorist group, or something else. The president would still have the ability to launch a strike when in "hot pursuit" of high value targets, like the raid that got bin Laden. But anything more than a one-off event would require a joint resolution of Congress.

As I've said before: Questions of war and peace are too important to be left to generals and presidents. These are questions to be put to the people. Requiring Congressional authorization for any sustained military operation is a step in that direction.

Weinergate in Perspective

2011-06-08T08:47:00.001-04:00

For now, "Weinergate" remains front-page news, and Republicans are hopeful they can use the issue to pick up what should be a reliably Democratic House seat.

But let's remember, George W. Bush was "elected" in 2000 largely due to a backlash against President Clinton's sex scandals. Bush promised to "bring honor and integrity back to the White House." Where did that get us? Two invaded countries, a surplus turned into a deficit, the Patriot Act, torture, domestic wiretapping, global war against a noun, the biggest income inequality since the 1920s, the end of habeas corpus, and the Great Recession. But, hey, as far as we know, George was true to Laura!

Yes, when it comes to public office, I will take a progressive Democrat who stands up for working people but cheats on his wife and tweets pictures of his private parts with consenting adults any day of the week over a "family values" Republican who wrecks the country to serve the rich and powerful.

5 Things To Remember About Israel-Palestine

2011-05-27T07:35:00.008-04:00

I watched the Glenn Beck show, in full, four times last week. No, I haven't converted to the dark side. And, as far as I can tell, I haven't gone crazy. I was interested because he was talking about Israel all week. It's funny, he obviously doesn't know much about Israel-Palestine and also doesn't seem curious to learn. But he's convinced that Obama has betrayed Israel in a way that will probably lead to either genocide or Armageddon. Never mind that Obama was simply re-articulating the traditional US stance on the issue (two states, pre-'67 borders, etc), with which the world is in nearly unanimous agreement. Glenn Beck portrays the Israel-Palestine issue as a stark dichotomy: You either "stand with Israel" and are thereby following God's commandments from the Bible, or you stand with the Palestinians, spit in the face of God, and want all Jews to die. And of course he's very emotional, on the verge of tears, about it.

What's scary is that I think a lot of people agree with him on this. Heck, based on a number of comments I've seen on Facebook I know plenty of people who agree with him.

So I'd just like to throw out five thoughts to help pull this discussion in a more sane direction.

1. Even if you believe the Bible commands you to "stand with Israel," the Bible does not command you to support militaristic, unjust, apartheid policies of the Israeli government. The Bible does not command you to support the oppression of the Palestinian people. It's an absurd argument to say that for a Christian to live out his beliefs he must support the Israeli government's actions no matter how egregious they are.

2. Jews/Judaism and the nation-state of Israel are not interchangeable. It's an important distinction, yet people like Beck speak as though they are one and the same. Only about 42% of the world's Jewish population lives in Israel. More Jews live in America (45% of world population) than in Israel. Israel itself is only 75% Jewish. And if the Palestinians in the occupied territories were counted, Jews would not even be a majority in Israel. Which leads to the next point...

3. When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demands that Palestinians "recognize Israel as a Jewish state," he is implying, among other thi ngs, that Palestinians within Israel will always be second-class citizens. To put that in perspective, imagine people demanding that Ireland "recognize Northern Ireland as a protestant state." Imagine Alabama demanding to be recognized as a Baptist state.

4. The most humane and sensible solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is also the most radically left-wing. I'm talking about a "one-state solution." It goes like this: Make all Palestinians citizens of Israel, incorporate the Palestinian territories into Israel's territory, and allow the refugees to return from Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and elsewhere. Have a secular, democratic government that protects minority rights and freedom of religion. In other words, do what is just and stop treating one group as superior to another. Isn't this also the most "American" solution? You could say that a "one-state solution" is what ended up happening in the segregated American South and in apartheid South Africa. This solution also recognizes the facts on the ground--that Jews and Palestinians are going to live intermingled one way or another. But the strongest opponents to a one-state solution are those on both sides whose positions of privilege would be threatened by democracy and tolerance.

5. Israeli public opinion is much more "Pro-Palestinian" than you think. Most Israelis support a two-state solution with pre-'67 borders. Most Israelis support direct negotiations with Hamas. Most Israeli's support dismantling most of the Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories as part of a peace deal. So whoever wants to "stand with Israel" should stand with the Israeli people against their right-wing government.

That's all for now. But next time you hear someone being called an Anti-Semite because they are arguing for democracy and justice for Palestinians and Israelis alike, step into that discussion with some of these points. It will hurt Glenn Beck's feelings. And make him cry. Literally.

Another MLK Quote To Chew On

2011-05-05T22:49:00.001-04:00

I've seen lots of Martin Luther King Jr. quotes making the rounds on Facebook since the death of Osama bin Laden. They've been quotes about loving our enemies, which seem especially apt right now as Americans process and debate the appropriate reaction to bin Laden's death.

It seems like there is a King quote for any occasion. This reminds me of another one I came across recently:

"There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism"

This is not the MLK my generation learned about in elementary school. The watered-down Dr. King we were taught was solely focused on civil rights for African-Americans. He had "a dream" about a future where Blacks and Whites were equal. And that was all.

But the real King--who hasn't yet been erased from history--fought for civil rights and economic justice and peace and knew that these things could not be separated or viewed in isolation. This is why his speeches, especially the later ones, are filled with references to worker's rights, unions, Vietnam and defense spending.

Here's the quote in more context:

"You can't talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can't talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You're really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry.... Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong... with capitalism.... There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism."

This was King trying to put it all together. Is anyone on the national stage doing that today?

Obama A Lock To Win Re-Election

2011-05-03T22:27:00.001-04:00

Warning. In this post I discuss the American political implications of Osama bin Laden's death. To some--mostly Republicans who don't want President Obama to get credit for anything--this sort of discussion seems somehow out of bounds or too early or too divisive. To me, it seems as normal and natural as the air we breathe. Everything about bin Laden's public life and death is interconnected with US policy, so let's talk about US policy and politics.

First, in case you had any doubt before that President Obama would be re-elected, you can probably cast away that doubt now. Bin Laden's death is the single best news item Obama could have hoped for in his first term, with the possible exception of a miraculous economic recovery. In the minds of ordinary voters (those who aren't following political news all the time like you and me), Obama is now associated with patriotic ass-kicking. His campaign commercials will rekindle that association in the Fall of 2012. And patriotic ass-kicking wins elections.

Republicans also just lost what has been their top issue in recent elections: national security. I don't agree with Obama's conduct of the wars he inherited. But what room do Republicans have to criticize him? He fights their wars better than they did. And it's a fair question to ask: Why couldn't George W. Bush catch bin Laden? Maybe because he wasn't really trying...

"I just don't spend that much time on him, really, to be honest with you."

For Bush, bin Laden was more useful as living justification for his Global War on Terror and the exercise of unprecedented executive power. Remember, at the time of the remarks above, he was still plotting how to use 9/11 as justification to invade Iraq and maybe later Iran. Obama, on the other hand, campaigned on the strategy of shifting resources from Iraq to Afghanistan ("the right war") to better hunt bin Laden. When he took office he ordered the CIA to make Osama bin Laden its top priority. Whether those policies were right or wrong, they do mean Obama will get political credit for bin Laden's death. The old policy was failing, he changed it, and the new policy succeeded.

Finally, I've been watching as Republicans struggle to settle on their talking points about all this. For some, the line is simply, "Congratulations to our brave troops and how dare anyone politicize this." Others are bigger about it and congratulate everyone involved including President Obama. But Rush Limbaugh tried out something different the other day. He said something like, "I congratulate the president and thank him... for following the Bush policies in the war on terror." Oh please. The Bush policy of ignoring bin Laden? The answer to that argument is simply to play the video above.

More to follow as I try to pull the tarp off and fire up this old blog.

Shameless and Relentless

2011-04-14T21:40:00.001-04:00

The Republican budget proposals rob the poor to pay the rich. There is no program they support that benefits working people. Yet there’s no treat for the rich that Republicans are not fighting for. And they never stop. When the economy’s booming, they say we can afford tax cuts for the wealthy and that we should bet Social Security on the stock market. When the economy’s tanking, they say that only tax cuts for the wealthy can stimulate the economy and that we can’t afford Social Security at all. They never stop trying to suck wealth out of the public to pay the rich. They never stop hunting any organization that seeks to equalize (democratize) power.

Two thought experiments will help illustrate these points. First, imagine the most cartoonish greedy CEO you can. Now think of the political and social policies he would support. Odds are these would place him somewhat to the right of the average Republican politician. But I think this CEO would still be welcome, if not celebrated, in today’s Republican party. Now imagine the cartoonish CEO gets a dose of pragmatism. He realizes he can’t get everything he wants right away. He sees he has to work incrementally. So he wraps up his true goals in arguments about “free markets,” “big government,” “rugged individualism,” and so on. After this change in tactics, our CEO is just a regular old Republican. You could picture this guy standing next to John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Paul Ryan, telling us why the rich need tax cuts and the average workers need pay cuts.

The second thought experiment is more of a challenge: Try to think of a single institution--whether it’s a government program, an organization, or a policy—that builds power or quality of life for ordinary or disadvantaged people and is not reviled by Republican politicians and conservative pundits. Hmm, what’s something really basic and humane? How about an organization that registers poor people to vote and advocates for affordable housing for the poor? That organization was called ACORN and was successfully destroyed by a right wing smear campaign. How about just the ability to sit down in a green space and enjoy a beautiful day? Green space? You mean the city park, maintained with tax dollars, where Republican donors want to build a casino? When are you doing this sitting? On the weekend after your 40-hour work week, which was created by the labor movement in the face of violent resistance from big business? Is the air your breathing clean or polluted? You get the picture. Give it a shot.

They never stop gobbling up our money and never stop hunting down resistance. It’s Ebenezer Scrooge meets Gestapo.

Why Progressives Should Cautiously Support The Libyan No-Fly Zone

2011-03-18T04:40:00.000-04:00

Should progressives and leftists really support military strikes by the most powerful forces in the world against yet another Muslim country? I think this position stinks, but it stinks much less than the alternative.

The alternative is that we continue to use words and money to support the rebels and undermine Gaddafi. Maybe in the long term that would help the Libyans overthrow Gaddafi and begin a democratic transition. But in the short term it would mean Gaddafi crushes this uprising with air, land, and sea power. It would mean a siege and heavy bombardment of the second largest city in Libya. It would mean mass executions in the cities that supported the revolution (which is most of them). Are we willing to watch all that happen so that we can take a principled stand for pacifism or non-intervention? Not me.

American progressives have cheered on the protests and uprisings in the Middle East since they began in Tunisia in January. We have rallied in solidarity. We have linked our own struggles for justice to those in the Middle East. We have pressured our government to ditch its puppet dictators in the region and side with the people. We have encouraged these uprisings in many ways. In Libya the uprising has been met with brutal and overwhelming military force by a dictator who is allied with Western governments and oil companies. We cannot now just look the other way while the dictator crushes the uprising and slaughters its people.

We must support a no-fly zone and the air strikes that go with it. Our attention now should shift toward preventing "mission creep" and unnecessary escalation. We can't allow the US government or anybody else to turn this into a war for foreign domination of Libya. For some in the West, it is probably already about extending their own power. A number of peace activists and intellectuals are already making the case that the US rarely if ever intervenes militarily in foreign countries for purely humanitarian reasons. Phyllis Bennis from the Institute for Policy Studies argues that the US government is more interested in being favorably positioned in the region and with a new Libyan government than in preventing atrocities. Yes, that's true. All of the usual arguments from the left against war and intervention are true. But they are not reasons to oppose a no-fly zone in Libya. They are reasons why the international left must keep up the pressure on governments once the no-fly zone and air strikes begin.

How We Got Here...

Over the last week there's been a dramatic shift in the international community's position on the fighting in Libya. At first, France and Britain were the only countries making much noise in support of a no-fly zone over Libya. The US was dragging its feet. Then, the 22-member Arab League voted unanimously to call for a no-fly zone. Meanwhile, Gaddafi's forces were rolling through Ajdabiya, the last major town before they reached Benghazi--the capital of the anti-Gaddafi uprising. Soon the talk of a no-fly zone would be a moot point, because the rebels would control no territory of significance.

And then suddenly the United States changed its position yesterday and threw its weight behind the push in the UN for military action. On Thursday the UN Security Council voted to authorize "all necessary measures" short of ground invasion to protect Libyan civilians. At any time in the next few days, US, European, and Arab nation air strikes are likely to begin against Gaddafi's heavy artillery, tanks, and air power. Although it would have been nice to have seen this move a week ago, before the regime forces had driven so far east, this does seem to me like remarkably fast maneuvering by the UN, all things considered.

And Where We Should Go

So there's a strong mandate from the world for the use of force. But what should that use of force look like? The first goal should be to stop a government assault on Benghazi. That means defending the desert road between Ajdabiya and Benghazi. The second goal should be to dismantle Gaddafi's ability to make war on other cities. That means preventing his armor and artillery from simply rolling back into Ajdabiya or heading back further west to crush remnants of the uprising in other cities.

What do you think? What's the "least bad" option?

Yes, A Libyan No-Fly Zone Would Be Easy

2011-03-12T05:59:00.000-05:00

In Libya, the United States seems content for now to watch Gaddafi brutally reassert control. The regime is using its superior organization and firepower to drive the revolutionaries further and further to the east.

NATO and the UN have, to varying degrees, discussed the idea of enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent Gaddafi from bombing the rebel strongholds in the east. Although, I think it's a general rule that when the US government proposes military action, its stated aims are almost never its true aims, a no-fly zone deserves consideration. We are watching a brutal dictator crush a revolution, bombing civilians with Russian and French-built military aircraft. A revolutionary army to oust Gaddafi cannot move across wide open desert roads toward Tripoli under an all-out military assault.

And keep in mind, the rebel-controlled National Council, which France was the first to recognize as the legitimate government of Libya, has asked for a no-fly zone. If the case for humanitarian intervention is ever valid, why not here? Why should the international community simply stand back and watch?

Defense Secretary Gates has been going around making the case that enforcing a no-fly zone would not be easy. He's wrong. It would be easy. Crater Gaddafi's airfields. The west could prevent military planes from even taking off in Libya, let alone shoot them down once they're flying. We've also heard explanations of how hard it would be to maintain a no-fly zone once in effect. That's beside the point. Who says a no-fly zone has to be 100 percent enforceable from the moment it's declared? Announce it, enforce it when and where you can, and set up the logistics to make it more effective as quickly as possible.

I do not understand the slow motion we are seeing from the administration. France and Britain are calling for a no-fly zone, and Italy has offered use of its bases. But the US drags its feet. Is this just diplomatic positioning? Does Obama want it to look like we were dragged in by the international community rather than leading the push?

And then there's this:

"The regime will prevail," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said darkly at a Senate hearing on Friday. What?! I must not have gotten the memo that it was time to write off the Libyan opposition. Once again, I do not understand what the Obama administration is doing here. The US should continue discussing a no-fly zone, but the focus on the difficulty of such an operation seems overblown and dishonest.

Of course, as always, the American people should be suspicious of a push by the political elite for any military action. But we should also be vigilant that the US government is ready to sell out a people's movement to keep a predictable, western-friendly dictator in power.

(And yes, Gaddafi has been a friend of the US, Britain, and Italy since 2003.)

This Is What Class Warfare Looks Like

2011-02-28T16:01:00.002-05:00

Everyone should know by now that the American super rich have been gobbling up a larger and larger piece of the American pie since around 1980, as shown by the first chart above. One of the ways they've been able to do this is by crushing the labor movement in the private sector, as shown in the second chart. Power has been consolidated in the hands of upper management, and wealth has been consolidated in the bank accounts of the richest of the rich.

But the logic of modern hypercapitalism is that enough is never enough. So now the right wing--the corporate elite, their puppet Republican Party, and their duped working class foot soldiers who make up the Tea Party--have set their sights on one of the last vestiges of organization and power left in the working class: public employee unions.

This has nothing to do with budget deficits. That's just the PR strategy from the right. In Wisconsin, the forefront of the battle right now, the unions have agreed to all of the financial cuts that the Republican governor has asked for. But he's not to content simply to strip away union benefits. He wants to dismantle the unions themselves.

Public employee unions are the obvious and logical next target for the right wing and the so-called conservative movement. Union density is still fairly high (36%) in the public sector. That's roughly the union density we had in the private sector in the 1950s when America was a much more middle-class nation. By crushing public employee unions, the right wing crushes one of the last pillars of the once great American middle class and they get an even bigger piece of the pie of our national wealth. The fat cats are never full.

La Femme Follette had an excellent post a couple of days ago that lamented how even many seemingly progressive "hipsters" view unions as "a quaint...relic whose time has passed." If the right wing is able to destroy public employee unions the way they have private sector unions, that's how we'll be describing the middle class pretty soon.

The glimmer of hope I see in all of this is the militant response by the labor movement--public and private sectors--in Wisconsin and the solidarity rallies all across the country this past week. Here, locally in DC, I can tell you that the assault on Wisconsin unions has ignited a broad coalition of progressive groups centered around the labor movement. Even though I believe the right has been planning this assault on public employee unions for a long time now (more on that later), I still believe they've been surprised by the forceful reaction from the left. But rallies and marches are one thing, organizing the unorganized is another. What we saw in the auto industry of the 1930s with the great sit-down strikes, we need to see today in the retail and fast-food industries. Bosses everywhere need to fear that their workers are talking about a union. That is where the progressive/labor movement can actually begin to turn the tide and once again build power and economic justice for working people.

An Injury To One Is An Injury To All

2011-02-23T10:28:00.000-05:00

In case anyone thought Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's "Budget Repair Bill" was actually about the budget, think gain. The state's public employee unions have agreed to the wage and benefit cuts asked for by the governor. But Governor Walker will not budge on his true priorities in the bill--dismantling the unions by stripping away collective bargaining rights and the ability to negotiate benefits and working conditions.

This should come as a surprise to no one. The right wing has made no secret that public employee unions are their next target. After destroying the labor movement in the private sector over the last 30 years, the public sector is the logical next step. But keep in mind, this assault on unions has almost nothing to do with state budget deficits and everything to do with destroying the last bits of organization and power in the working class.

What may have surprised a lot of people is how hard the workers have fought back. The pushback against union-busting Republican governors is spreading to other states in the Midwest, and solidarity rallies in support of the Wisconsin workers are taking place all over the country. There should be no doubt that the fight taking place in Wisconsin is not merely a Wisconsin issue. It really is about whether there will continue to be a middle class in this country or whether the right will mop up the last organized resistance to plutocracy.

Today, I will be at a solidarity march and rally in downtown DC. (Here it is on Facebook.) We are meeting outside the DC offices of Koch Industries. The Koch brothers are the right-wing billionaires who backed Gov. Walker's campaign, funded "Americans for Prosperity," and the Tea Party in general. We'll then march over to the Wisconsin Governor's DC office.

If you're in the area, come on down. If not, you can follow me on Twitter, where I'll be posting live updates.