Bush donors for Kerry

In the last few days, the Democratic attack machine has been targetting the charge that Ralph Nader's campaign has allegedly been helped by Republicans and conservatives. Democrats [sic] have never specifically charged that Nader solicited right-wing help or even that he was aware of what's going on. At least to my knowledge.

The party establishment was quick to seize on this as "proof" of Nader's hypocrisy and further evidence that they are the only real "alternative" to Republicans and that there are huge differences between the donkey party of the working man and the corporate-shills of the GOP.

So it was interesting to read a piece on Nader's website, For example, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, five of Kerry’s top 19 donors have also donated to the Bush Campaign. These include people from major US corporate interests: Citigroup ($157,806 to Kerry, $557,275 to Bush), UBS Americas ($157,450 to Kerry, $431,850 to Bush), Goldman Sachs ($155,250 to Kerry, $350,875 to Bush), Microsoft ($104,663 to Kerry, $184,040 for Bush), Morgan Stanley ($101,954 to Kerry, $557,275 to Bush). Are the Democrats and the media going to ask John Kerry to return the nearly $700,000 he has received from these donors ­ as well as from the many others who are also supporting the Republican campaign?

Some are also trying to make it an issue that Nader's newest book is being published by a house owned by Rupert Murdoch's group, though their snit fits fail to mention that the same publishing house also released Stupid White Men by Michael Moore.

It shows how desperately they are grasping at straws.

Both members of the Democratic ticket supported the Iraq invasion and the Patriot Act, two of the most odious public policy decisions of the last quarter century. Sen. Kerry has said he might appoint an anti-Roe v Wade Supreme Court justice so long as "that's not the balance of the court" before later bragging, "I voted for Judge [Antonin] Scalia," the most far right judge on the Court.

I concede that Kerry is much less pro-theocracy that President Bush and less anti-science. And Kerry has promised that if the US invades a random country for dubious reasons under his administration, he will be more careful about kissing up to Europe and the UN.

But I still think the senator and his supporters should worry less about Nader. They have a far more challenging task on their hands: how are they going to sell their candidate as being vastly different from the incumbent when his positions on the three issues that most animate the anti-Bush crowd are far more similiar to the current administration's than either would like to admit?

Inertia as state policy

The Legislative Gazette website reported on what the New York state legislature did and did not do this year before adjourning in late June.

Passed:
Patriot Plan II, increasing benefits for New York National Guard members.
Expanding DNA collection for law enforcement.
Albany Convention Center Authority established.
Niagara River Greenway Commission created.

Not Passed:
An on-time state budget, [now a 20-year tradition.]
Education reform.
Rockefeller drug law reform.
Medicaid reform.
Long-term care reform.
Campaign finance reform.
Budget reform.
Municipal tort reform.
Pension reform.
Binding arbitration reform.
Wick’s Law reform.
Empire Zone reform.
Manufacturing tax reform.
Worker’s compensation reform.
Energy reform.
Racing and gaming reform.
Auto leasing, vicarious liability reform.
Procurement lobbying reform.
Anti-terrorism II.
Superfund technical amendments.
Linked Deposit Program.
MTA bus legislation.
Foster Care, ASFA.
Eliminating statutes of limitations for rape, other violent felonies.
Gun trafficking.
DWI reform.
Deadly drivers.
Civil commitment of sexually violent predators.
Megan’s Law enhancements.
Suzanne’s Law, school violence.
Gang sexual assault.
Repeat misdemeanors.
Child pornography.
Child endangerment.
Mathis’ Law, unintentional killing of a child.
Timothy’s Law, insurance coverage for mental health.
Tamiqua’s Law.
Methamphetamine labs.
Higher education capital improvements.
Election/HAVA reform.

Nevertheless, Albany's Times-Union newspaper noted that incumbent legislators have a 99% re-election rate. But gerrymandering is a topic for another day.

Where's the Arab outrage over Darfur?

Ethnic cleansing continues in the Darfur province of eastern Sudan. In one of the Bush administration's rare good moves, they are actually paying attention to this genocide, rather than playing the ostrich like the Clinton administration did during Rwanda. The New York Times noted that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on Thursday demanded "dramatic improvements on the ground right now" in the Darfur region, where armed militias have routed more than a million Sudanese from their homes, adding that "Despite the promises that have been made, we have yet to see these dramatic improvements," Mr. Powell told a panel on African policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Only actions, not words, can win the race against death in Darfur. And we will not rest. We will continue to apply pressure."

Meanwhile, France signaled it would block UN sanctions on the Khartoum regime even if they do nothing to stop the ethnic cleansing. (More on this outrage later this week)

Over at Foreign Dispatches, Abiola raised an interesting question: why are Arab countries silent in the face of the Arab genocide against Darfur's black African population?

Abiola writes No amount of Arab or Muslim hypocrisy would ever justify shameful behavior on our side, and the point here isn't to say "Who are these people to point at us?", but to push the Arab and larger Muslim world to adhere to the same standards of conduct within its boundaries that it demands of outsiders. What would truly be shameful would be to turn our eyes away from the way in which "brother" Muslims mistreat each other for fear of offending their sensibilities, as we would in effect be saying "Well, one can't really expect any better of such people, can one?"

Although Lebanon's Daily Star did call for the Arab League to respond strongly to the Darfur crisis, they seem to be a lone voice in the wilderness. If Arab countries were to come out more strongly against the Sudanese regime's crimes against humanity, it would give them a little more credibility when they scream about Israel's treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories or American conduct in Iraq.

But I guess they wouldn't want to shift attention away from their designated scapegoats.

More on the smear campaign

The website Salon.com has long been in the forefront of the Democrats' efforts to smear Ralph Nader. I'm not really going to get into another discussion about why Nader's candidacy is important (few Democrats bother engaging him on actual issues, just on the fact of his candidacy). Nor am I going to discuss the bizareness of "ABB"ers showing their disgust for the Iraq invasion and the Patriot Act by demanding everyone on the left of center vote for two guys who SUPPORTED the Iraq invasion and Patriot Act. Those are essays for another time.

But, Salon's latest contribution to the attack campaign was interesting. They reported (it was reporting in the same way Fox News [sic] reports) on the recent debate between Nader and former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean. The choice of Dean was ironic since Dean himself was once the main target of the Democratic establishment for which he's now the token progressive.

When challenged about a right-wing Oregon group that's supposedly working to get Nader on the ballot, Nader answered, "We don't even know this group. Don't try and tar us with this." Dean urged Nader to simply renounce the Oregon group. "I'll renounce them," Nader said, quickly shifting the focus of the debate. "Do you renounce Pfizer and Chevron and other companies who were criminally convicted of crimes by the federal government for giving millions of dollars in the year 2000 to the Democratic Party?"

Salon then criticized him for accepting money from a prominent Bush supporter and then objected vigorously when Nader stated, "Republicans are human beings too." And Nader's the extremist?

In an interview with the Democracy Now! radio program, Nader spoke of some of the strategies Democrats (not to be confused with democrats) are using to keep Nader and his running mate Peter Camejo off the ballot. Now, some might contend, with a straight face, that the Democrats [sic] are just making sure everything's done legally and it's not about lawyering Nader out of the race.

Nader explains, When I talked to John Kerry, I talked basically about the dirty tricks that the Democratic parties at the state level are using to try to keep us off the ballot on technicalities, drain our resources. In Arizona, the democrats hired three corporate law firms. They filed suit against us. They had filed suit on such things like one of our signature gatherers-- it takes 14,500 signatures to get on the Arizona ballot. One of the signature gatherers collected 550 signatures. He happened to be an ex-felon who paid his debt to society. He had been on juries. He was a registered voter. They found that he did not pay allegedly a $400 fine to the state, and they wanted to knock off 550 signatures. That would have cost us long days in litigation, and we had to drop our effort. We have limited funds under Federal Election Commission regulation. The Democrats have unlimited funds outside of any regulation. That's what they're doing in Oregon and elsewhere. I told John Kerry to-- words to the wise. He may be presiding over a situation, whether he knows it or not, that can be a mini-Watergate.

I've been saying for four years that Democratic whining about the 2000 election was disingenuous. Neither they nor the Republicans advocated the ethically correct option in the Florida recount. Their machinations in Arizona and elsewhere only further bolster my theory that both parties tried to steal Florida in 2000, but only one could be successful. Apparently, "Democrats" want to make sure they don't repeat that failure to win the dirty tricks contest this year.

I'm not big on online petitions but you can sign one to protest the unethical campaign currently being waged. I'm not sure how much good it will do; when they want to, Democrats can be just as scummy as Republicans. Still, at least it will let them know that there are a few on the left who are not seduced by this garbage.

We need more than two parties in the political process, something that every other western democracy has. If you can go to the store and be offered 50 different versions of white bread, then surely you're mature enough to have more than two political choices for all offices.

And we don't need it next year or when "it's safe" or when it's convenient for the duopoly. All of which amount to never.

Otherwise, we'll continue to be stuck with two tickets who offered 100% support for such odious policies as the invasion of Iraq and the war on civil liberties. The right time to have a backbone is always now.

More on dysfunctional New York state government

The blogger NYCO reports on a New York Times article from last week about the problems of New York state's 640 public authorities.

NYCO writes: Six hundred and forty. The mind boggles. None of their boards are elected. None of them are accountable to the public. And I doubt the average New Yorker can name more than one or two of these authorities - e.g. Port Authority, New York Racing Association, Thruway Authority. (And read the part about the billions in debt incurred by these authorities

It cited the Times article for an explanation as to why authorities are so prevelant. [T]he authorities have their roots in the state's Constitutional Convention of 1846, when New York was on the brink of bankruptcy and its voters decided that the state should not be allowed to borrow money without a public referendum. "Years later,'' the report says, "as the state's fiscal needs expanded, the public authority concept began to develop as a mechanism to avoid the public referendum requirement.''

NYCO opines: The mind of the average New Yorker cannot get itself around such massive corruption and poor management; when I engaged my mom in conversation about it recently, she seemed puzzled that anyone should be angry that the state currently has no budget. "But that's the way it always is, they never have a budget," she said. Albany has her trained good. When I explained to her that, no, that's not the way it always is, that state legislatures are expected to pass budgets as a bare minimum of their duties, that no other state has the atrocious history of New York in this area, that the lack of a budget affects her directly, and that this is not, as she thinks, normal... I almost saw a glimmer of light her in her eyes. Almost. Not quite.

On a related note, North Country Public Radio noted that a fiscal watchdog group is asking state lawmakers to take a pledge. The Citizens Budget Commission wants Senators and Assembly members to promise that they will actually read the state budget before it is passed this year.

Only in Albany would it be considered revolutionary to actually take time to know what they were voting on. Assuming they ever vote on it.

No, I'm just here for the noise

A few weeks ago, I was at a local bakery cafe, which hosted one of the regional Democratic Congressional candidates. While others were milling around waiting for the candidate to start, I was sitting reading a magazine. An older man walks up to me and says, "What baseball team do you like?" It seemed like a thoroughly random question but I obliged. "The Red Sox."

Then, when no baseball chatter followed, I went back to the magazine. A few seconds later, he asked, "Is baseball more important than politics?"

"I beg your pardon."

"Do you think baseball is more important than politics?" he repeated.

I was really baffled by the question and a bit annoyed by the not-so-subtle hint of condescension in his voice. The implication seemed to be that I conformed to his stereotype of a politically apathetic young person. I really couldn't figure out any other motive for the question even though it seemed like a particularly bizarre suggestion to make at, um, a political gathering. Maybe he thought I was someone who randomly straggled in just to grab a loaf of bread.

"Why do you ask?" I said, not really trying hiding my agitation.

He pointed at my cap (which, ironically, was actually a soccer hat). Without saying a word, I showed him the cover of the magazine I was reading. The political magazine I was reading. It had Secretary of State Colin Powell on the cover.

"Oh, is that liberal or conservative?" he asked. Not offering any hint of an apology for either his condescension or the incorrectness of it. He quickly shifted into figuring out where the magazine and (by implication I) stood in his dualistic view of the world.

Silently, I showed him the cover again and ran my finger across the title headline, which made it clear that it was an article critical of the Bush administration.

"Oh ok," he said. I started reading the magazine again and he mercifully walked away.

Ethnic cleansing: a progressive tradition?

In an article for Salon.com, former Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal applauds John Kerry's choice of John Edwards as his running mate. "Following the progressive tradition of Andrew Jackson, the North Carolina senator will challenge the GOP's divisive appeal," Blumenthal gushes.

I certainly did a doubletake when I read the words, 'the progressive tradition of Andrew Jackson.'

Probably Jackson's most famous comments was in response to an unfavorable Supreme Court decision. "[Chief Justice] John Marshall made his decision. Now let him enforce it." Rule of law anyone?

One of Jackson's most notable poilicies was the Indian Removal Act of 1830. All eastern Indian tribes were forcibly relocated west of the Mississippi River. Much like the apartheid South African government's creation of black "homelands," the Indian resettlement policy was based on condescending, dressed up with patronizing rationalizations. It was, of course, all for their own good.

Take these two messages from Jackson to Congress.

First the patronizing: "It is pleasing to reflect that results so beneficial, not only to the States immediately concerned, but to the harmony of the Union, will have been accomplished by measures equally advantageous to the Indians. What the native savages become when surrounded by a dense population and by mixing with the whites may be seen in the miserable remnants of a few Eastern tribes, deprived of political and civil rights, forbidden to make contracts, and subjected to guardians, dragging out a wretched existence, without excitement, without hope, and almost without thought."

Then the condescension: "They [Indians] have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential to any favorable change in their condition. Established in the midst of another and a superior race, and without appreciating the causes of their inferiority or seeking to control them, they must necessarily yield to the force of circumstances and ere long disappear."

Resistance to the violent imposition of "Manifest Destiny" was justified in terms that might sound familiar in today's "War on Terror" world. In another message to Congress, Jackson wrote, "After a harassing warfare, prolonged by the nature of the country and by the difficulty of procuring subsistence, the Indians were entirely defeated, and the disaffected band dispersed or destroyed. The result has been creditable to the troops engaged in the service. Severe as is the lesson to the Indians, it was rendered necessary by their unprovoked aggressions, and it is to be hoped that its impression will be permanent and salutary."

If this sort of thing is origin of the "progressive tradition" Edwards purports to uphold, then I'll pass thank you very much. Of course, the real answer is that Kerry and Edwards have nothing to do with progressivism.

Militarism as foreign policy

A preview for CNN's NewsNight asks:

Of other matters. Is the U.S. Army too small? That was
the question on the hill today with both the Chairman
and ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee
saying troops are reaching a breaking point, especially
the reserves.

In countries where the military is used as primarily as an instrument of national defense, they might ask a significantly different question given similiar circumstances: is the Army being ordered to do too much?