As the hawks in the Democratic Party gain ground, and even John Edwards' more progressive voice gets drowned out, the need for a candidate who will articulate an uncompromising message for peace and social justice becomes ever greater.

Cynthia McKinney is seeking the Green Party nomination for the presidency, and she has 100% of my support.

A CBS news poll, conducted in September of 2007, found that 55% of the electorate supports national, single-payer health care. The question was:

"Which do you think would be better for the country: having one health insurance program covering all Americans that would be administered by the government and paid for by taxpayers, or keeping the current system where many people get their insurance from private employers and some have no insurance?"

In February, the number of people who supported it was 47% - less, but still close to a majority. I wonder to what extent Michael Moore's movie Sicko had an impact on the numbers - which are nonetheless high, given the almost complete lack of articulate support in the media for the idea. The NY Times had an editorial on Nov 25th about health care, in which they discuss Single-Payer as follows:

[Single-Payer] would let the government offset the price-setting strength of the medical and pharmaceutical industries, eliminate much of the waste due to a multiplicity of private insurance plans, and greatly cut administrative costs.

Sounds Great, Right? so, what's the problem?

But a single-payer system is no panacea for the cost problem — witness Medicare’s own cost troubles — and the approach has limited political support.

Too bad that according to a NYTimes poll from March,

A majority of Americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American, especially children, and are willing to pay higher taxes to do it, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

So what they mean is that politicians - in the health insurance companies' pockets - don't support it, against the wishes of the majority of the population. How's that for journalistic double-speak?

SUPPORT HR 676!

I sent in a form and donation to become a member of both the washington state and national Green Party - because i believe in supporting institutions that challenge power and authority.

And I was glad to have done so when I read the following snippet from the great NYTimes columnist Paul Krugman:

the [Hillary] Clinton campaign is holding a “Rural Americans for Hillary” lunch and campaign briefing — at the offices of the Troutman Sanders Public Affairs Group, which lobbies for the agribusiness and biotech giant Monsanto. You don’t have to be a Naderite to feel uncomfortable about the implied closeness.

Monsanto is one of the worst corporate criminals in history (and that's saying something, given the competition for that title): they produce Agent Orange, which was used in Vietnam to destroy the forests and has caused untold suffering to civilians (and US vets). They push Genetically Modified crops on US consumers and on other countries (Brazil, Argentina, and India to name a few). They produce and mass-market the recombinant bovine growth hormone which induces untold damage to cows and human consumers. There are better candidates for the corporate death penalty, but not many.

Thanks for the head's up, Paul. And screw you, Hillary.

So, there was a washington state math convention. The State Superintendent spoke, and said some things. The Seattle Times article included this snippet:

That buzz comes, in part, on the heels of a review of Washington's standards for mathematics that found them sorely lacking, especially when it comes to the basics. The report echoed concerns expressed by parent groups such as "Where's the Math?" which have criticized math curricula taught in local school districts, including Bellevue and Lake Washington.

This "review", i presume, is the one published by the pro-privatization (i.e. pro voucher) group "the Fordham Foundation."

So, I wrote back. these were my comments:

I was baffled by Ms. Tuinstra's unqualified remark about a "review of Washington's standards for mathematics that found them sorely lacking, especially when it comes to the basics."

Should all of the state's children undergo a rigorous, rich, and engaging math education? of course. Are Washington State's standards "lacking" in that regard? Perhaps.

But if the standards are "sorely lacking," why do our children in grades 4 and 8 score above the national average on the National Assessment of Education Progress, "the only nationally representative and continuing assessment of what America's students know?"

Does it have anything to do with the fact that the organization that conducted this "review" - the Fordham Foundation - supports the privatization of public schools (through so-called "vouchers")?

Ms Tuinstra does her readers a disservice by not addressing these issues.

Oh, i guess i haven't said this in a while:

From the NY Times:

The Bush administration plans to increase its 2008 financing request for military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere by almost $50 billion, with about a quarter of the additional money going toward armored trucks built to withstand roadside bombs, Pentagon officials said Saturday.

The increase would bring the amount the administration is seeking to finance the war effort through 2008 to almost $200 billion. Much of that money will go to refurbishment of military equipment and to the purchase of new protective equipment for troops, officials said, an indication of the toll that years of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan have taken on military vehicles, aircraft, weapons and other items.

Defense officials said earlier this year that the Pentagon would need a war budget of $141 billion in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1. [...] About a quarter of the new money would go to build additional mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles, or MRAPs, Pentagon officials said.

Members of Congress have criticized the Defense Department, saying it has been too slow to buy enough of the vehicles for troops in Iraq.

The vehicles, which cost around $1 million each, [...]

The Bush administration originally sought $2.6 billion for fiscal 2007 to buy additional MRAPs, but Congress increased the total by $1.2 billion. Acquiring MRAPs has become one of the Pentagon’s biggest budget priorities.

Senator Joesph R. Biden Jr. [Democrat, Presidential Candidate], of Delaware, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, reintroduced legislation last week to increase financing for the mine-resistant vehicles by $23.6 billion.

“We have no higher obligation than to protect those we send to the front lines,” Mr. Biden said in a statement on Wednesday. “So when our commanders in the field tell us that MRAPs will reduce casualties by 67 to 80 percent, it is our responsibility to provide them.”

Hey, Joe. I have a strategy that will reduce casualties by 100%: it's called

I remain a staunch supporter of Dennis Kucinich and HR 676, when it comes to health care.

John Nichols has this to say about Hillary's proposal:

The Clinton plan maintains the current system of for-profit, insurance-industry defined health care delivery. The only real change is that, in return for minimal requirements regarding coverage of those with preexisting conditions, the government would pump hundreds of billions in federal dollars into the accounts of some of the country’s wealthiest corporations. The plan’s tax credit scheme would buy some more coverage for low-income families, which is good, but it would do so at a cost so immense

On August 28th I wento to see rage against the machine, reunited, at Randall's Island. the venue sucked. there were too many people, I couldn't see the stage even though I was close up.

Throughout the day, the festival had an all-hip hop line-up, but the crowd was almost entirely composed of white boys, not unlike myself of course. And, which is almost worse, there was an almost total absence of any kind of politica consciousness. We saw people wearing ared forces t-shirts, people in designer clothes...

I was disappointed, and i felt completely uncomfortable, especially when Cypress Hill made sexist remarks, and it just got downright bizzarre when the wu-tang clan used the n-word to address the crowd.

i kept thinking: "i hope zack cansomehow redeem all of this." And he did.

From the NY Times: On April 29th, during rage against the machine’s reunion concert at the Coachella festival, Zack De La Rocha gave a speech accusing the Bush administration of war crimes and said, “They should be tried and hung and shot.” A clip found its way to the Fox News program “Hannity & Colmes.”  The on-screen headline read, “Rock grp ‘Rage Against the Machine’ says Bush admin should be shot.”

On Saturday night Mr. De La Rocha responded. [During an extended musical break in the middle of Wake Up] he attacked the “fascist” Fox News pundits for “claiming that we said that the president should be assassinated.” As the crowd shouted its approval, he continued, “No: he should be brought to trial as a war criminal and hung and shot. That’s what we said.”

Zack continued, by saying that they stand in solidarity with young people: both the soldiers, who are in Iraq fighting a war for oil, and the young iraqis who are resisting the war every day. He ended by suggesting that it was about time that we started resisting the war here at home with the same intensity that Iraqi youth were resisting it in Iraq.

The thought of several tens of thousands of apolitical young white men paying $80 to hear someone say that warmed through the rest of the night.

Il manifesto sta facendo un interessantissimo sondaggio tra i militanti di base di rifondazione. Quanto segue e' l'inizio dell'articolo di martedi.

«Ma chi l'ha detto che gli operai sono di sinistra? Forse in passato, adesso in fabbrica va tutto bene se parli di condizioni di lavoro, anche gli scioperi si fanno e riescono bene. Ma come il discorso finisce sulla politica, la musica cambia». Giovanni Prisco è degato Fiom alla Ip Cleaning dove 190 dipendenti costruiscono macchine per le pulizie industriali. Tessera di Rifondazione comunista, passione politica, scelta convinta ma tanta delusione per l'esperienza di governo. Delusione e incazzatura sono sentimenti ampiamente condivisi tra i militanti del Prc che lavorano in fabbrica. Non si tratta tanto di posizioni ideologiche legate alle numerose componenti che affollano il Prc, quanto piuttosto del portato dell'impegno quotidiano tra gli operai. La nostra inchiesta sugli umori e le aspettative dei rifondaroli di fabbrica ci porta nel cuore dell'Emilia per la seconda puntata.

Bene!

mi sembra un segnale importante! anche se meglio ancora sarebbe con le elezioni a ballottaggio istantaneo...

non per il ridicolo motivo che la destra vada al ballottaggio: non hanno speranze, e non ne devono avere: ma perche' un gruppo di cittadini si e' fatto sentire e ha dato uno scossone alla nomenklatura al comune. Il vero quesito adesso consistera' nel creare un progetto che vada avanti e che cresca, mettendo in discussione i dogmi - criticando la sinistra (volutamente minuscola) da Sinistra (volutamente maiuscola) e dal senso comune dei cittadini.

ma approfitto dell'occasione per suggerire nuovamente l'utilita' delle elezioni a ballottaggio istantaneo.

Am I the only one that finds it ironic that these two news items ran on the same day?

Congress Passes War Funds Bill

Congress voted Thursday to meet President Bush’s demand for almost $100 billion to pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through September

Even before the House and the Senate acted, Mr. Bush welcomed the legislation, which does not set the timetable sought by Democrats for withdrawing troops but requires the Iraqi government to meet a series of benchmarks as a condition of receiving further American reconstruction aid.

Poll Shows View of Iraq War Is Most Negative Since Start

Americans now view the war in Iraq more negatively than at any time since the invasion more than four years ago, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Sixty-one percent of Americans say the United States should have stayed out of Iraq and 76 percent say things are going badly there, including 47 percent who say things are going very badly, the poll found.

These senators voted AGAINST the bill (so, presumably, they are positioning themselves as being AGAINST the continuing occupation of Iraq...):

Boxer (D - CA), Burr (D - NC), Hillary Clinton (D - NY), Coburn (R - OK) (???), Chris Dodd (D - CT), Enzi (R - WY) (???), Feingold (D - WI), Kennedy (D - MA), Kerry (D - MA), Leahy (D - VT), Barack Obama (D - IL), Sanders (I - VT), Whitehouse (D - RI) (???), Wyden (D - OR)

It's interesting that three of the Nays came from democratic presidential candidates. Of course, Dennis Kucinich voted against in the House.

Un amico (che manterro' anonimo) mi ha mandato quanto segue:

le amministrative si avvicinano sempre di più e nella nostra città regna il caos assoluto. Tra ulivisti convinti della vittoria al primo turno (che sui giornali ed in tv cercano di ridicolizzare gli oppositori), neofascisti in abiti eleganti, incalliti nostalgici del Granduca, ambientalisti, umanisti, vecchi politici col sedere incollato alla poltrona... qua non si capisce più niente.

[mi e' stato detto] che via Cavour è stata temporaneamente "decorata" con palme pre-elettorali che creano un "interessante" accostamento tra il medioevo e Miami Beach. Quello che da un lato fa piacere è il fermento politico, portato avanti da persone giovani che si riuniscono e riflettono sulle note dolenti dell'amministrazione cittadina.

Quello che mi fa paura è il risultato delle elezioni. Se il Berti vincesse al primo turno, sarebbe premiata una classe di politici che governa sulla base di un consenso inalienabile. Penso sia venuto il momento di dar spazio alle nuove idee e a persone che possano amministrare la città almeno pensando a quello che stanno facendo. Per questo mi sto convincendo di appoggiare Arcobaleno su Pistoia (la lista dei Verdi). Il che, detto da un ex-militante degli ambienti politici tradizionali della sinistra come me, non può essere altro che l'espressione di un disagio.

Mi piace la riflessione, mi dispiace non poter assistere e partecipare a questo "carnevale", condivido la critica all'amministrazione e a chi governa autocraticamente sulla base di un "consenso" possibile solo grazie alla mistificazione. E mi piace pensare di criticare la "sinistra" (volutamente minuscola) di chi governa da Sinistra (volutamente maiuscola) - da un punto di vista che si fonda su valori e competenza.

i rage against the machine (riuniti pe runa manciata di concerti) hanno scritto: SEIZE THE METROPOLIS, IT'S YOU IT'S BUILT ON!!! E con questo spirito vorrei continuare a vivere...

If this is what we can expect from Senator Obama, it sounds like more of the same. Positions like these are why i will support Dennis Kucinich.

Senator Barack Obama on Monday outlined his approach to foreign policy, vowing to [...] expand and modernize the military [as if the US military needed expanding... for what purpose?]

His foreign policy, he said, would more closely resemble the “burden sharing” the first President Bush employed during the Persian Gulf war than the current administration’s approach. [Bush senior's "burden sharing" meant: we invade other countries, and get Europe to foot the bill. Sounds great!]

“No president should ever hesitate to use force — unilaterally if necessary [A sentiment Bush would certainly agree with] — to protect ourselves and our vital interests [what are "our vital interests"? is control over middle east oil one of our vital interests? is the right to smash any country which decides to defy orders from the United States a "vital interest"?] when we are attacked or imminently threatened,” Mr. Obama said. “But when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others.” [What about "obeying the US Constitution and International Law by getting permission from the UN Security Council?]

The United States also must build a 21st-century military, Mr. Obama said, in addition to “showing wisdom in how we deploy it.” He called for expanding ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 to the Marines.  [again, for what purpose? The US armed forces serve no conceivable defensive purpose (if by "defense" we actually mean defense of the territorial United States from foreign aggression), so an expanded military could only be used for foreign wars. And regardless, would it be the best possible use of federal dollars, as opposed to, say, recruiting TEACHERS?]

Sorry, Senator Obama. Try again.

From the NY Times:

WASHINGTON, April 23 — Congressional Democrats agreed Monday to ignore President Bush’s veto threat and send him a $124 billion war spending bill that orders the administration to begin pulling troops out of Iraq by Oct. 1.

Mr. Bush made it clear again on Monday that he would use the second veto of his tenure to kill the legislation, which would set a goal of having most American combat forces out of Iraq within six months of Oct. 1. [which would mean APRIL 2008]

Under the legislation, if Mr. Bush determined that progress was being made, he would be directed to begin withdrawing troops by Oct. 1, [...], except for those protecting American facilities [Like the military bases they're desperately building?], those engaged in counterterrorism and those training and equipping Iraqi forces.

Better than nothing? You bet. Acceptable? not by a long shot. If I understand it correctly, the bill includes all kinds of waivers (if Bush decides they can stay, they can stay...) not to mention all the troops that will be "protecting American facilities", and all of the mercenaries (like the good folks from Blackwater) that are there with no congressional oversight.

Furthermore, what exactly are the soldiers supposed to accomplish between now and next April? Why start the withdrawal in October and not in June? And WHY THE HELL ARE WE SPENDING ANOTHER $124 BILLION ON THIS WAR?

Non ci siamo.

There's an organization, the "center for union facts" - which won't disclose where it gets its' money - which has made it its mission to attack and discredit the Newark Teacher's Union (NTU). There is little doubt in my mind that they are bankrolled by right-wing foundations.

I have previously discussed the waste of NTU members' money represented by the "stop the killings in Newark now" billboards (which ought to have said: tell your senators: money for health care and education, not war and occupation), but the center for union facts has turned this billboard campaign as proof that the NTU is responsible for all of the failures of the Newark Public Schools (NPS).

The main hack at the Center for Union Facts has written an editorial in the Asbury Park Press expounding this anti-union BS.

The main claim of the article could be summed up as this: Teachers unions are notorious for preventing tenured teachers from being fired, no matter how bad their performances. And in Newark, the size of this problem is astonishing.

Which was immediately and authoritatively refuted by Marion Bolden - the NPS Superintendent. She said in the Star-Ledger: “Have I ever taken an opposing position with the Union, there is no question yes, we go to arbitration, but when a teacher is overwhelmingly incompetent they don’t support them”

So the main claim collapses upon any minimal inspection - not surprising, given the level of intellectual discourse about unions on the right. But there is more: the NTU is also guilty of other crimes:

Do “the people” of Newark want good schools? you bet. Do they want Cory’s vision for education? That’s a bit more of a shaky claim to make…

But some people would rather attack reform with billboards than offer to make any real change.

It’s not clear to me that NTU was attacking “reform”. They are clearly attacking Booker – who supports vouchers, and mayoral control over the schools. Are those the "reforms" that the NTU opposes? then they're doing the right thing! are they going about it in the worst possible way? Yes. But to paint it as an attack on "reform" is deceiving and a ridiculous pro-voucher ploy.

No one is more invested in keeping things the way they are than the Newark teachers union. Last year, mayoral candidate Ronald Rice launched his campaign from union headquarters. More recently the union rented the now-infamous billboards attacking Rice's victorious opponent, reform-minded Mayor Cory Booker.

In terms of education, it’s unclear to me exactly how Booker plans to “fix” the schools. it sounds like he wants vouchers and mayoral control of the schools. But both are politically volatile, and there’s NO evidence to show that they work, so this right-wing hack just says the more palatable and positive-sounding “reform”.

Any REAL effort to fix the schools (in Bob Moses' terminology) would focus on a massive political effort to redirect substantive resources to the education system, particularly to the recruitment and training of teachers.

Math teachers, particularly in the high school, are in VERY short supply, and elementary school teachers too often do not have the training in math that they would need to get their children where they need to be.

This ought to be the crux of the argument. Fine, let's remove the NTU and allow the adminstrators to fire as many teachers as they want. Where are the replacements going to come from? Is it going to be more likely that there will be a steady stream of qualified, experienced teachers committed to social justice applying to work in the NPS if they will have weaker protection from arbitrary administrators, and less pay - as would inevitably be the case without a vigorous union defending its members?

The center for union facts is less about "informing union members" about their leadership and more about dismantling any kind of public infrastructure to the detriment of the poor

Is that "w" for "woman" or "warmonger"?

From the New York Times:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military. [...]

She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region,” she said. “It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”

All doubts are gone. Hillary is just as much an imperialist as anybody else. And how ironic that she at least has the decency to acknowledge the role of oil, and Israel, in forumulating US policy.

So, who should someone opposed to the war and the extension of the US empire of bases around the world support in the Democratic primaries? Obama? oops,

Senator Barack Obama, a rival of Mrs. Clinton, has said that if elected president, he might keep a small number of troops in Iraq.

While we wait for something definitive from Edwards, let's just roll up our sleeves and start talking about Kucinich.

stamani mi sono svegliato alle sette, ho acceso il computer per vedere le previsioni del tempo e avere un'idea della temperatura. e com'e' mia abitudine, ho anche guardato il sito del new york times. e ho letto che e' caduto il governo prodi, ma che napolitano li ha rimandati al loro posto.

stupito, sorpreso (ecco cosa succede a non leggere il giornale per due giorni!) ho provato a capire cosa fosse successo

leggendo in vari posti ho scoperto che i voti sono mancati in una votazione sulla politica estera, che si sono astenuti due "ribelli" fuori dagli schemi sia di rifondazione che del pdci, ma che si sono astenuti anche due senatori a vita filoatlantisti. (sul manifesto ho letto anche che l'astensione di Andreotti e Pininfarina e' stata piu' determinante - visto che si sono astenuti pare che non avrebbe avuto importanza il voto dei ribelli).

ma ho letto soprattutto che le reazioni (e le critiche, spesso severe) da molti angoli sono dirette verso i due "ribelli" a sinistra, e ho letto almeno un intervento di qualcuno che in sostanza dice "meglio una sinistra per modo di dire che Berlusconi".

Non posso essere d'accordo con questa enfasi. In particolar modo perche' mi chiedo: qual'e' l'effetto sul dibattito pubblico di vilificare due persone "colpevoli" di essere di "estrema sinistra"?

Mi sembra che l'unico effetto possa essere di indebolire quelli nella coalizione che vogliono spingere il governo verso scelte piu' sensate in politica estera, di rafforzare le spinte centriste e atlantiste nella maggioranza, e di buttare altra carne al fuoco della guerra ideologica fatta dalla destra.

Ci sono gia' pasato, da un dibattito di questo tipo, negli stati uniti: le infamanti accuse rivolte a Ralph Nader, "colpevole" di essere responsabile dell'elezione di Bush a scapito di Gore. Peccato che Gore l'elezione l'abbia VINTA, grazie alle azioni (che dovrebbero essere criminali) dei Repubblicani e alla decisione della Corte Suprema. E tutti quelli che parlano delle "colpe di Nader" finiscono per idolizzare una ipotetica amministrazione Gore ("non avrebbe invaso l'Iraq", si sente dire). Peccato che le azioni di Clinton da presidente siano state tutt'altro che accettabili - basti come esempio il fatto che Clinton ha ammazzato piu' iracheni con gli otto anni di sanzioni di quanti ne abbia ammazzati Bush (anche se i numeri si avvicinano tragicamente ogni giorno che passa). E non dimentichiamo che il vice-presidente scelto da Gore (Joe Lieberman) e' uno dei oiu' accaniti sostenitori della guerra in Iraq, e che gia' nel Dicembre del 2001 scriveva editoriali nel Wall Street Journal dicendo che bisognava "occuparsi" di Saddam Hussein.

Insomma, per concludere: cosa e' piu' utile per la salute della democrazia in Italia? accusare due ai margini della discussione politica o fare una discussione seria della mancanza di trasparenza e democrazia interna ai partiti, delle molte pecche della legge elettorale, e tralasciare molte opzioni che potrebbero essere utili a risolvere questi problemi (come le eleioni a ballottaggio istantaneo)?