Monday, October 29, 2007

"Why They Hate Us or Connect the Dots, Devastation Version" gets Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award






Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award




Barbies that are not safe for American Children or Chinese Workers or

Like a little fire with your gasoline?


Cross-posted from:
John Edwards'08 Blog - For All of Us

Why They Hate Us or Connect the Dots, Devastation Version

Fr4nki in Arguments & Analyses Feed of
10/27/2007 at 8:19 PM EST

Why They Hate Us or Connect the Dots, Devastation Version


The report below provides an excellent snapshot of corporate treatment of overseas workers; this one focuses on working conditions of Chinese workers employed by Mattel.

http://www.nlcnet.org/admin/media/docume nt/China/Mattel/Toys_Misery_WEB.pdf

There is too much infuriating information to summarize here but what is missing are the larger ramifications of these situations. Let's see if I can connect the dots:

--Allows China "favored trade" status, you know, happy, happy, joy, joy, free trade, in spite of continuing human rights violations
--Eliminates US jobs
--Avoids "tough" product legislation, like those ridiculous laws that keep lead away from kids
--Waives rules concerning workers' hours, wages, age, etc.
--Cheats workers out of wages due
--Since so much money was saved on production, mark up cost to consumers 200-300%
--Do not test products for lead or other contaminants, instead
--Spend 24 TIMES the cost of production to advertise the toy to consumers
--Pay CEO 6,533 TIMES what you pay the Chinese worker to produce the toys

In the continuing reports of tainted products flooding US markets, the finger is consistently and angrily pointed at CHINA when it is the corporation who is at fault.

We must instead eliminate or radically reform the trade agreements that allow conscious-less corporations to eliminate jobs at home so they can exploit workers and spoil the environment in developing nations, all the while making off with millions in profits and flooding our stores with goods that threaten our health and safety.

It's not just bad for us--around the globe these corporations are the face of America. I can't imagine how the Chinese workers must detest us, working a grueling 17 or 20 hours a day to create a smiling garish caricature of American gluttony and callousness.

Don't be discouraged by the report's length; it's a very easy read and worth your time. Please, take Mattel toys off of your shopping lists.

Last, and maybe most important, share John's message with your friends. He gets it and is not afraid to take on this terrible system. I think he's our only hope.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

"A Democratic Landslide...But Are We Ready?" by grannyhelen gets Silver Pen Award





Recipient of Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award


Cross Posted from John Edwards Blog


http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/10/22/13540/817#commenttop

This feels like Part 2 of an untitled series on rural America and John Edwards. This time coverage of rural Purple State America comes to you via the Rocky Mountain Times.

"...In this far-flung, northwestern corner of Iowa, it's "almost kind of scary" to be anything but a Republican, she said.

Lyon County, which touches South Dakota and Minnesota, gave President Bush 78 percent of the vote in 2004. It's part of the big, red, rural block that Bush used to eke out the narrowest of victories in the Hawkeye State that year.

In these parts, "A lot of times you don't brag about being a Democrat," said McCarty, 72, of Larchwood, Iowa. "But it's getting better."

That could explain the elbow-to-elbow crowd that greeted Edwards at the firehouse - and the grin Edwards had when he was talking to reporters afterward.

"I do have to say, I was remembering the last time I was up here," Edwards said, thinking back to the 2004 campaign. "We had five, seven people. . . ."

Times have changed..." (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/lo cal/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5728155,00.ht ml)

Things are definitely happening among the Bush believers of rural America. After Katrina, after Iraq, after their homes values have dropped and their dollar just doesn't buy as much as it used to, a lot of them have just stopped believing.

My gauge on this one is my dad. My dad is your prototypical Republican voter. White. Male. Protestant. Small town. The breed of working American who somehow can't bring himself to use the phrase "working class" when describing his economic status.

Before Katina, he almost exclusively watched Fox News (I remember a discussion we had in the time share where we all were staying where I negotiated the MSNBC Compromise). He listens to Rush...and actually enjoys the experience!

But then, after Katrina, something happened to my dad. A fervent believer his whole life (in both Christianity and conservative values) he started to question his beliefs. To illustrate, let me share with you my paraphrased recollection of an instant message we had one night a few weeks back:

Dad: What is KOS?

Me: KOS? What do you mean, KOS?

Dad: They're talking about it in the news. KOS. What is that?

Me (really not getting it): KOS? Do you mean K.O.S.? Or like cuz - because?

Dad: No. They're saying KOS uses bad words and lies about people. What is it?

Me (when the light dawns): Do you mean Kos, as in Daily Kos? The blog?

Dad: Yeah.

Me: Dad, I blog over there. They don't use words that are any worse than any other blog. Here, check out the link right now: www.dailykos.com.

Dad (after a few minutes): Yeah, I don't see anything wrong over there.

Me: Exactly.

Dad: That's not right. When they're reporting stuff they should let you know the whole story.

At which point my head exploded and I launched into a very nice rant about Fox News.

My point in bringing up this story is this is just one of many times recently where my dad has questioned Fox, and Rush, and Bush, and basically the whole God, Guns and Gays agenda of the far right (although my dad's never been much of a gun nut - he just hangs out with them sometimes). If you've ever met someone like my dad, seeing the propaganda shell he's hid himself in cracking right before your eyes is a beautiful thing.

But it's not just my dad.

A lot of rural Americans are questioning what used to be the unquestionable assumption that just like going to church and rooting for the local college football team, they were just going to vote for whatever Republican was on the ballot. More than that, they're starting to question why they've been doing that for so long.

It's almost like they're starting to feel that the GOP has been taking them on a for-granted ride since Reagan first uttered the phrase "Government is the enemy".

Democrats are poised to pitch these folks on a different path. A Competing Big Vision. Edwards is wide and deep down this road already, talking to folks about the things that are important to them: their pocketbooks, their health and their livelihood. Economic populism had its roots in the rural communities of the 19th Century, and every few generations it comes back again in the form of a William Jennings Bryan or a Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Edwards isn't the only one trying to harness this potential power. Obama has just released an agricultural plan that's pretty darn good reading, and Richardson talks a good huntin' game.

But for my money, Edwards is the one whose strategy includes focusing on these folks and bringing them back to their populist roots. Such a strategy, if successful, could garner Democrats a landslide, the reverberations of which could last for years to come.

But are we ready?

Monday, October 22, 2007

"DHS skullduggary" by Don Vila gets Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award






Ibrahim expressing his appreciation





Ibrahim Parlak







Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award





http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/10/21/213812/47#commenttop


Cross-posted from John Edwards' Blog

DonVila in Diaries Feed of DonVila's Diary
10/21/2007 at 9:38 PM EST

Folks in the great lakes states are likely to know a bit of the plight of Ibrahim Parlak. A legal immigrant, granted asylum, has faced daunting and ridiculous challenges in his adopted country. But as bad as they have been, I'm sure he'd agree that these pale to the horrors he faced in his native Turkey.


There is no way I can possibly describe the injustice done to this man in a few paragraphs. That said, I'm including a link to the free Ibrahim website, which will give you some idea.

http://freeibrahim.com/Ibrahim_for_citiz en.asp

I certainly am willing to give a few of my impressions, though.

Ibrahim Parlak was a dissident in his native Turkey, and was horribly tortured for that. He was later granted asylum here. Then the PKK (with which he had been associated) was declared a terrorist group. Citing some nondisclosure offense, our Department of Homeland Security declared Mr. Parlak a terrorist threat.

People who live near him characterize him as a gentle man, a wonderful father and a gracious restaurantuer.

Notables such as Roger Ebert, Senator Carl Levin and Representative Fred Upton are determined and vocal in Mr. Parlak's support.

I ask that you put what energy you value (prayer, meditation, your choice) for Ibrahim Parlak.

I'd never met the man before today (though I'd followed his case) and told him so. We embraced, and he thanked me.

Democracy is really, really, really not a spectator sport.

Don Wheeler
South Bend, Indiana

Sunday, October 21, 2007

"Light My Fire" by Michael Duby receives Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award





Recipient of Karita Hummer's Silver Pena Award




Light My Fire



Cross-posted from John Edwards Blog

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/10/19/2139/6653

user icon michael duby in Quick Posts Feed of
10/19/2007 at 9:03 PM EST

Today's AP article deserves wider readership among the Edwards website regulars. The point that stands out is that John Edwards is running for president to ensure that every American child has "fair opportunity" to succeed and be happy.

The squeezing of the American middle class into "lower-middle" status has not gone unnoticed. The disparity of wealth is as great as 1928; our saving rate negative and comparable to 1932-33.

"Only John Edwards has called for raising the minimum wage to $9.50 and creating a new test for trade: will new deals benefit working families, not just multinational corporations?

John Edwards is informed by the fact that 300,000 taxpayers make half of the nation's income, while 150 million make the other half, which represents the greatest income inequality in this country since 1928. This reality has been exacerbated by the combination of unfair tax practices, the ill effects of unfair globalization, and trade policies that mostly enrich multinational corporations and certainly not workers.
John Edwards has the most specific proposals of any candidate to restore tax fairness, enhance competitiveness and job growth, and make free trade also once again fair trade. Regarding the latter, John Edwards is for strong labor and environmental standards and against illegal subsidies and currency manipulation - and he is also for rigorous trade agreements enforcement, not just negotiation. In the detail and breadth of his proposals, John Edwards differs substantially from the other candidates." - Leo Hindery, Sr. Economic Advisor

Life life to the fullest every day. Contribute to this campaign with a clear vision that we have already made a huge impact by setting the policy agenda for the Democratic Party.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Ed wards-Profile.html

Build One America with joy and love and hope. /

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

"On Solutions, Or, Congressman Reichert, I Believe You Were Looking For This" by Fake Consultant gets Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award




Recipient of Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award



Cross-Posted from John Edwards blog

On Solutions, Or, Congressman Reichert, I Believe You Were Looking For This

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/10/14/94131/074#commenttop

user icon fake consultant in Arguments & Analyses Feed of
10/15/2007 at 11:21 PM EST

the regent opens iraq's parliament, novenber 1942; library of congress

As I reported in a recent story, I was fortunate enough to have a talk with my Member of Congress, Dave Reichert, regarding the “surge”.

While we disagreed with many aspects of his (and my) interpretation of events, there was one valid point he made that deserves a detailed response: that Democrats cannot articulate a path forward that could be reasonably expected to reduce the chances of “the bloodshed and chaos” that is so ominously predicted in so many quarters.

My goal today is to reach way outside the conventional thinking to offer such a path.

So let’s get right to it, shall we?

Before I can offer a set of specific proposals, I need to take a minute to frame the discussion that is to follow.

I will do this through the use of a set of hypotheses.
For example:

--I would suggest we are fundamentally wrong to view the events in Iraq since more or less the 1960s as a series of actions that are motivated solely by the desire of one religious group to dominate another

--We view the conflict that is evident today as a battle against terrorism that is directed at us...or some vague notion of Islamofascism; when in fact much of the violence in Iraq is in no way related to the struggle between extremist elements in Islamic countries and the US.

--I submit that we can get better results by viewing the troubles in Iraq as fundamentally an economic and political power struggle, where various groups are seeking to fill the vacuum left by the removal of the Al-Tikriti clan from power.

--Unemployment and corruption combined with a “failure of hope” for the future are our biggest enemies. A functioning economy and a Government perceived as honest wouldn’t fix all the problems in Iraq; but if we were perceived as the ones who helped Iraq get back to work, it might well keep things from getting worse-and when you’re in a hole, the first rule is to stop digging.

Our first hypothesis states that the events in Iraq are not solely related to the desire of one religious group to dominate another.

Is that correct?

Consider a few facts:

His name was not just Saddam. A more correct representation of his name would be Saddam Hussayn Al-Tikriti. Why does this matter? Because, as with many Iraqi names, the Al-Tikriti refers to the person’s tribe.

Remember the “Playing Cards”?
Look at the names...it’s Al-Tikriti all over the deck.

This fact alone tells us that a major portion of the Iraqi governing apparatus was tribally related-and when you combine this with the fact that the Baath Party was more or less a secular organization you can quickly see that Hussein’s was mostly a “capitalist” oppression, and not so much a religious one.

How did the Baath Party rule?
Not as a theocracy.

By Islamic standards, before 2003 Iraq was a middle of the road country. Women had more freedom of movement and options in public life than today. There was not a movement to establish a strict Sharia Law, nor an effort to “export Islam”.

Despite the claims of certain parties, there was no synergy between the Baath Party apparatus and Al Qaeda.

The economy was the real interest of Hussein’s-and the management of the “Oil for Food” program is an indication of how entrenched the culture of distributing opportunity to your friends for a piece of the action had become.

Political oppression? Plenty of it, indeed-but I submit that oppression, and the attacks on the Kurds and Shi’a were motivated more by a desire to remain in absolute power, facing no opposition, then they were a product of religious animosity.

Evidence to support this proposition is found in the fact that both Kurdish communities in northern Iraq (who are predominantly Sunni) and Shi’a communities were attacked on orders from Hussein, who of course was Sunni.

If the attacks were solely intended to send a religious message, why were fellow Sunnis in the north targeted?

It is important to keep in mind, as we evaluate all of this, that the area from more or less the Tigris River west to the Syrian border (the historically Sunni Arab area, which includes Tikrit, Falluja, and Hadithah) is the one portion of Iraq with the least oil resources; and that at the time of the gassings of the Kurds and Shi’a both were considering nationalist movements-funded by the oil beneath their lands. This would leave the Al-Tikritis with no real source of income. (Do you know what Iraq’s biggest export is after oil? I don’t either...and that’s not good if you’re running what’s left after the Iraqis with all the oil have broken away.)

In that context, the use of gas against Hussein’s own countrymen seems more logical-he did whatever he had to do to keep control of the cash register...and he was perfectly willing to send the most brutal of messages to anyone seeking to diminish that control.

We have advanced a second proposition in this discussion: that the violence in Iraq is not primarily a function of Al Qaeda exporting “Islamofascism” to a new “central front in the War on Terror”.

Sure enough, there are facts available that support this analysis. For example, we are told that “foreign fighters” are responsible for a rather small proportion of attacks in the country. Conversely, we are told that local combatants are the parties responsible for the great majority of attacks...both against US forces, and other Iraqis, as well.

That’s not surprising, if you think about it.

The most basic reality that US planners should have anticipated in 2003 is that no one really appreciates being invaded...no matter how “enlightened” the motives of the invader might seem.

The US itself is no exception. There is no question that the US Constitution is under wholesale assault by this Administration to a degree never experienced outside of a period of declared war. So try to imagine Gordon Brown announcing to Parliament that the UK feels the need for “regime change” in this country because the current Administration has become controlled by extremists and possesses “weapons of mass destruction”.

Imagine Mr. Brown announcing that British troops have landed on US shores, and will be marching on Washington...and then inviting us to “greet them as liberators”.

Despite the best intentions of the UK forces, the greeting would probably look something more like the biggest hunting season you ever saw, with militia members finally getting to use those stashed antitank rockets that are probably buried in back yards all over this country.

And so it is in Iraq.

Obviously the fact that enormous quantities of munitions were left laying around and unguarded makes it even easier to not “greet us as liberators”; and facts suggest that something like the process I’ve just described is taking place.

Of course, violence in Iraq is not just directed at the “coalition of the willing”-a major portion of the violence is between the Iraqis themselves.

Our third proposition addresses that violence, and suggests that majority of the violence is not predicated on religious struggle, but economic.

As we previously discussed, control of a lot of oil has suddenly changed hands, and conventional thinking might lead us to believe that this asset will be divided along sectarian lines.

The fact that the Mahdi Army, led by Al-Sadr is fighting the government of Al-Maliki, and that both are Shi’a...and the fact that Shi’a sects have begun to violently engage with each other in the Basra region as UK troops withdraw should tell you two things...

...it’s not all about sect, and... .

...despite what Joe Biden might think about the wisdom of such a plan, dividing the country into three parts along sectarian lines will not stop the Shi’a on Shi’a struggle; which is a major component of the troubles today, and likely to be a greater portion of the troubles in the future.

The history of Iraq, for most of those alive today, is the 35 years that the Baath Party has held power-and total control of the economy...and all that oil money, and the oppression and fighting with Iran that accompanied those years....and of course, the 12 years between the Gulf Wars when the US operated the “no-fly” zones, and led the charge for the sanctions that so affected average Iraqi’s lives, and the 5 years that have followed.

And all of a sudden, the lid of the “pressure cooker” that had suppressed all other political aspirations has been removed. The internal power struggles, and the perception that Al-Sadr represents Iraq’s Shi’a poor (and that the Iraqi Government doesn’t) have come to the front, as has Iran’s interest in a more theocratic-and Shi’a dominated-Iraq.

Al-Sadr also seems to benefit from a reputation of being less corrupt than Al-Maliki’s allies in Government.

All of this said, we should realize that religious considerations are to varying degrees important to the players; and that appears to be particularly true in the south.

Which brings us to solutions...

Of course, before we can discuss what to do, we need to define what we are trying to do.

With all respect to Congressman Reichert and those who share his perspective, there seems little probability that the surge will develop conditions that achieve the political reconciliation he seeks.

To put it another way, Iraq is not gonna be a “thousand points of light” anytime soon.

My goals are much more modest:

--Success would be to stop creating conditions that engender resentment towards the US.

--Success would be finding ways to help put Iraqis to work.

--Success would be working with institutions inside and outside of Government to improve the professionalism of Government; with the goal of reducing the perception that corruption is the normal way of doing business.

--Any success we might attain in “engaging” leaders and future leaders (religious, tribal, business, and political...who are often the same people) to whom we currently have no direct connection would be a greater victory that we have today.

Bill Richardson aptly points out that when it comes to engendering resentment, the presence of US troops is making things worse, not better.

So the first thing that should be done, Congressman, is to get the troops out of the business of policing a civil war.

I suspect if we were sitting together having this conversation you would tell me that we cannot withdraw troops because of the potential for bloodshed and chaos once we leave. To which I would respond...

...we are incapable of continuing the surge past this spring. We just don’t have the troops. If the surge was required for “victory”, and we can no longer continue the surge, how are we to achieve the “more stable, self-sufficient Iraq” you were hoping for in January?

...even if we had the troops to continue the surge forever, there is no political will to create the reconciliation the surge was supposed to engender. All knowledgeable observers, including General Petraeus, agree that the only way to success of any kind is through the political process-and that, as the General says, the process needs to include our opponents as well as our friends.

...the surge does not reduce the pent up pressures that have developed between tribal and religious groups over these past 35 years, and more and more it seems evident that we are merely delaying any retribution that might occur-and losing troops to do it.

Another source of resentment: the state of the economy. As we discussed above, unemployment is the enemy, and we should more or less hire every Iraqi we can find to rebuild whatever local communities request that is reasonable.

The Defense Department has discretionary funds available for commanders, and we need to do the same thing on a much larger scale through the auspices of the State Department. Many more Provincial Reconstruction Teams resources are needed and local “Sub Teams” should be established. This will require the presence of troops for some time to come, for the purposes of security. But there’s no reason for 130,000 troops and another 150,000 or so contractors...and probably not 30,000, either.

My next idea for the Congressman will involve some looking at the neighbors for inspiration-particularly Syria and Jordan.

If we are to create a more professional governing community, we should aggressively start the process of educating those future leaders...even those who come from groups we might not today support.

Iranians and Iraqis attended US schools in the past, along with citizens from many other countries. Do these contacts matter? I would invite the Congressman to consider these words:

“The relationships that are formed between individuals from different countries, as part of international education programs and exchanges ...foster goodwill that develops into vibrant, mutually beneficial partnerships among nations."

Who said that?
Our current President, that’s who.

To get a sense of what impact this can have, here’s a list of foreign leaders who attended school in the US-and the list literally goes from Afghanistan to Zambia.

Training in the US is a good idea...but what can be accomplished locally? That’s where Jordan comes in.

The Talal Abu-Ghazaleh College of Business in Amman, Jordan is an excellent example of what we have not yet been successful in creating in Iraq-a genuine professional school that can operate with reasonable security.

Schools like this can be created in Iraq-if we make the schools either inclusive...or we help the various groups on the ground set up schools that meet their own needs...always trying to emphasize the positive effect on Iraqi citizens from knowing how to operate and maintain the infrastructure they are building.

This needs to go both ways...until we have schools that teach Americans how to understand this part of the world, our actions are as likely to fail as they are to succeed.

The mistrust that currently exists between the US and the Iraqi communities suggests we may have to accept a limited degree of control and oversight in order to create the perception that we aren’t ramming these schools down anyone’s throats.

This is like drilling wells for African villages-you build the facilities based on what the communities and the US can arrange...but then you let the locals run the show, and you hope they like you the better for it. That process, repeated a thousand times or so, is not only cheaper than today’s combat operations...it gets better results. As a matter of fact, it’s the exact same process we are using in places as disparate as the Philippines and Angola and Somalia-and Baghram.

The faster the US is perceived as the country that builds things for poor people the faster we will find real National Security-because those folks will have less reason to hate us.

It sounds simplistic, but if it’s already our policy in the rest of the world...why not Iraq?

Along the same lines, we need to get credit into the local economy-and the Syrians, who are attempting to adopt a “social market economy” model, are trying to move ahead with a brand of capitalism that both connects their economy to the larger world economy and capital flows; and does it while being empathetic with Islamic economic sensibilities.

We could learn much from an Islamist approach to economic reconstruction as we try to redevelop the economy of the next-door country.

Finally: we have to get to know the people we want to persuade them to see our point of view.

Advertisers the world over know that the first step in any communications effort is to know your target market-and if there’s one thing we don’t know enough about, it’s Iraq.

We don’t speak the language, we don’t understand the culture, and we have limited personal relationships with local leaders. To make matters worse, we transfer out our troops just as soon as they get to know the local leaders, and we replace them with a new set of troops who have to develop the relationships all over again.

This is another State Department and Intelligence Community problem, and we need to have greater Defense/State Department integration so that these relationships can be developed and nurtured over longer periods of time.

To paraphrase George Patton, why take the same real estate twice?

So Congressman Reichert, there you have it: a strategy that is far more likely to work than what the President has proposed to this point, a strategy that will stop us from digging our proverbial hole deeper, and a strategy that will, in the end, save lives-ours and theirs.

And here’s the best part-this same strategy would also go a long way towards fixing our Iran problem.

Monday, October 15, 2007

A Progressive Populist's Prescription for an Ailing Democracy



We the People are affirmed and empowered by John Edwards' initiative for One Democracy, a truly democratic way of life for America. From that vantage point, our moral leadership in the world will be reinstated. We will lead by example.

Cross-Posted from John Edwards Blog

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/10/14/6746/7008


JRE's Prescription for America: Empowering Citizens through a One Democracy Initiative

user icon Karita Hummer in Quick Posts Feed of
10/14/2007 at 5:47 PM EST
John Edwards announced the most marvelous medicine for America. It is just what is needed for an ailing country: "election reform, reforming campaign finance to strengthen small donors, and ending the unique power of lobbyists."

By announcing his "One Democracy Initiative: Returning Washington To Regular People", John Edwards is affirming his faith in the American Social Contract, as derived from the Preamble to the Constitution:

" We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.[1] " Preamble to the Constitution

As Wikipedia states:

"The language "We the People" explains that the power and authority of the federal government of the United States does not come from the various states, or even from the peoples of the various states, but rather from the greater entity identified as the people of the United States of America. The Constitution thus serves as a compact or contract between the people of the United States, the several States, and a newly created entity: the federal government of the United States."

Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to _the_United_States_Constitution

Election reform, reducing the influence of lobbyists, enacting meaningful campaign finance reform, and enabling citizens having a greater voice in government are the surest ways to rejuvenate our democracy. In this system, the people are accorded rights, power and responsibilities. John Edwards is calling on all of us to step forward, take ownership and give back to our communities and Country.

I have not recalled any candidate so explicitly giving so much power to the people nor encouraging such broad based participation.

John Edwards is a candidate who gets Democracy!! We the people are the heart and center of the Edwards' populist campaign. We are at the core of Senator Edwards' purpose for running. A Presidency under John Edwards promises the American Social Contract as promised in the Preamble to the Constitution, but so terribly shredded these last seven years, will be honored and kept. Do you get democracy? Imagine America under a populist president who understands economic and social justice.

Karita Hummer
San Jose, CA

And here is a response fromt he John Edwards blog:

Great post Karita... (none / 0)

Bruce Ackerman, professor at Yale law school, has a great book called "We the People", and provides a great popular sovereignty interpretation of the constitution. I think you would really like it.

Edwards is nothing if not consistent and true in the philosophy of his campaign proposals, and in the particulars of how his campaign proposals work. 1) Improve the economic life of ordinary citizens. 2) Improve the amount and conditions of health care received by ordinary citizens. 3) Improve the democratic process to better represent ordinary citizens. 4) Improve access to education for ordinary citizens.

This is "walking the walk"....

by rjluczakII (The New Citizenship)

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

DonVila writes about Steve Skvara in South Bend, gets karita Humer's Silver Pen Award





Multiple Time Winner of Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award


Cross-posted from John Edwards blog



http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/10/6/155150/999
Steve Skvara - featured speaker at forum for health care reform in South Bend, IN

user icon DonVila in News Feed of
10/07/2007 at 6:55 AM EST

Steve Skvara in South Bend

United Auto Workers Local 5 hosted a health care reform forum Saturday, October 6th in South Bend, Indiana. The program featured views from the union and Hoosiers for a Commonsense Health Plan- an organization which agitates for a state run single payer system in Indiana. But the star of the show was Steve Skvara, who gained instant fame with his question at the AFL-CIO Democratic Presidential Candidates Forum in Chicago, IL concerning health care: "What's wrong with America, and what are you going to do to change it?"

I had the privilege of a conversation with Steve who lives just down the road from us near Valparaiso, IN. He is a retiree from the now defunct LTV Steel Corporation (the company whose engineered bankruptcy cost him his family health care coverage and one third of his pension). He's currently an Executive Board Member of Steelworkers Organization of Active Retirees (SOAR) and agitates for health care reform. In his view, what's needed is a national, universal coverage system.

South Bend Mayor Steve Luecke (left)

I was curious about how it came to be that in that vast crowd in Soldiers Field he was able to ask a question of the candidates. He explained to me that in an earlier event, he had posed a similar question which had come to the attention of the organizers of the Chicago forum. That put him into a pool (I think he said of 37 people) who were potential questioners. I think I've forgotten a step in the process, but the point is that there was a group of people who went to the event given cards with abbreviated versions of their question on their side and a number on the opposite side. Only shortly before the forum started, did the potential questioners find out if they would be called. And the "questionee" was basically by lot.

So in a bit of serendipity, former Senator John Edwards was asked a question he was eager to answer, posed by someone who supports him.

So what did Mr. Skvara have to say? Pretty much what most of us try to get people to understand: That nearly 50 million Americans have no health care insurance coverage, that most personal bankruptcies are driven by medical bills. That although we spend nearly twice as much per person as any other developed nation on health care our outcomes (life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.) lag behind most of these nations. His own cardiac specialist said we need a single payer system, because his billing service costs that doctor a quarter million dollars a year. There's no medical care benefit to that expense. The other thing he had to say is something people who put up with my posts may have grown tired of hearing. The problem will not be corrected without us. Period.

Mr. Skvara's experience is very instructional. He suffered a permanent disability due to an auto accident his family experienced. At the time, he had fabulous heath coverage - thanks to the efforts of organized labor. His family had coverage through the same program and though as a retiree he was required to pay for it - the cost was quite affordable. Then came the liquidation of LTV and it was all gone.

When Mr. Skvara stood up in Chicago he qualifed for Medicare due to his disability, but his wife did not qualify (not old enough, not disabled). I still find it very hard to keep it together watching the video (as I have many times) as he, struggling with his emotions, says he sits across the breakfast table across from the woman who took care of their family for thirty-six years and knows he can't afford to pay for health care for her - and seems ashamed of it.

It is we who should be ashamed. I know I am.

Happily, she now has care (in terms of check-ups and tests) by a medical group in Illinois thanks to someone who heard of their plight. But it's because of someone who did a nice thing, instead of us doing the right thing. And it isn't the same thing as coverage.

Mr. Skvara is an eloquent spokesman on this issue and he needs our help. I was a bit disappointed in the size of the group of attendees, but pleased to hear the written support of Senators Lugar and Bayh and Representative Donnelly. South Bend Mayor Steve Luecke was also in attendance and I enjoyed a brief conversation with him.

Here are a couple of my own thoughts on the topic. Opponents of universal health care coverage like to trot out the specter of "socialized medicine". Their idea is that private insurance is the model. But insurance - by definition, is socialism. Gather the biggest pool possible in order to spread the risk. We each pay in our appropriate fraction of the total anticipated cost and receive a benefit only if we need it. Universal coverage is merely the logical extension of the insurance model.

Another thing I think about is that a long time ago we agreed that it was our responsibility as a society to provide a certain level of education to every citizen. Though some have tried to backslide on this one, I still think it is a good idea. People use the phrase "right to life" quite frequently. I'd suggest the right to life (or certainly, the right to a life of quality) often requires competent medical care - without the distraction of "how am I going to pay for this?'. How is this any less important?

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

Don Wheeler
South Bend, IN

Note: I'll attempt to post some video as a diary later, but there was no amplification so the sound's not so great.

"John Edwards: Don't Replace Corporate Republicans with Corporate Democrats" by TJP receives Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award





Winner of Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award






Cross-posted from John Edwards blog


http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/10/6/22218/3551


user icon TJP in News Feed of
10/07/2007 at 6:53 AM EST

Crossposted from MyDD: http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/10/6/9588 /78005

Yesterday, John Edwards criticized the corporate nature of the Clinton campaign and why it is the wrong way for Democrats. John Edwards highlighted Senator Clinton's chief advisor, Mark Penn, as a prime example:

"Bush has been a perfect example of cronyism, because Blackwater has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republicans and to President Bush. I also saw this morning that Sen. Clinton's primary adviser, Mark Penn, who is like her Karl Rove - his firm is representing Blackwater. I think it is important for Iowa caucus-goers to understand the choices they have in this election. And it is the reason I continue to say we don't want to replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats."

Ben Smith (quoting John Edwards)

Who is Mark Penn, what's the story on Blackwater, and why should any care that Clinton's chief advisor is a union buster? All around the fold.

First, Mark Penn has sought to clarify his company's role with Blackwater:

Burson says its subsidiary, BKSH & Associates, run by GOP operative Charlie Black, "helped Blackwater prepare for their recent hearing before Congress. With the hearing over, BKSH's temporary engagement has ended."


Ari Berman, The Nation

Okay, so his company's subsidiary prepared Blackwater to testify before Congress. Hmmm. And they won't do it again, right? Not until next time, anyway. And tell me, why do you need a PR firm to tell the truth to Congress?

Who is Mark Penn and why is he important?

But perhaps the most important figure in the campaign is her pollster and chief strategist, Mark Penn, a combative workaholic. Penn is not yet a household name, but perhaps he should be. Inside Hillaryland, he has elaborately managed the centrist image Hillary has cultivated in the Senate. The campaign is polling constantly, and Penn's interpretation of the numbers will in large part decide her political direction.
Yet Penn is no ordinary pollster. Beyond his connections to the Clintons, he not only polls for America's biggest companies but also runs one of the world's premier PR agencies.

snip

Morris knew Penn from his days as a pollster in New York and brought him into the White House. Morris decided what to poll and Penn polled it. They immediately pushed Clinton to the right, enacting the now-infamous strategy of "triangulation," which co-opted Republican policies like welfare reform and tax cuts and emphasized small-bore issues that supposedly cut across the ideological divide. "They were the ones who said 'Make the '96 election about nothing except V-Chips and school uniforms,'" says a former Clinton adviser. When Morris got caught with a call girl, Penn became the most important adviser in Clinton's second term. "In a White House where polling is virtually a religion," the Washington Post reported in 1996, "Penn is the high priest." He became known as the "most powerful man in Washington you've never heard of."

Spinning Hillary Centrist

The man with the polls tells Hillary what to say and how to say it. Hiding corporate policies under the pablum of poll-tested platitudes. PR firms do that every day for corporations.
Just ask Labor about Mark Penn:

"Learning that Mark Penn was CEO of a company that in fact conducts some of its business busting unions was very, very problematic to the AFL-CIO, as well as to many other unions, and we made that clear" to the Clinton campaign, said Karen Ackerman, AFL-CIO political director. "This is an issue that continues."

Teamsters General President James P. Hoffa said in a statement: "We have expressed our concerns to Sen. Clinton about Mark Penn and his firm's work for anti-union companies. We value Sen. Clinton's commitment to strengthen America's middle class. But as long as Mark Penn continues to profit from his company's involvement with anti-union companies, this issue will not go away."

LA Times


One of labor's bigger irritations with the Clinton campaign has been the role of chief strategist Mark J. Penn, who has remained worldwide president & CEO of Burson-Marsteller, the global public relations and public affairs firm. One of the B-M clients most despised by labor is Cintas Corp., which is the largest uniform supplier in North America and say it clothes 5 million people for work each day.

snip

With Burson-Marsteller's assistance, Cintas has staved off a push to unionize its workforce, and the public relations firm's website at one point boasted of its work in parrying union pressure.

Ben Smith's Blog

You cannot ask Eleazar Torres-Gomez about Burson's work for Cinitas in fighting unionization, a union that would have forced the company to obey safety rules, because he's dead:

Eleazar Torres-Gomez was pronounced dead on the scene after apparently being dragged by a conveyor into an industrial dryer. Torres-Gomez was trapped in the dryer--which can reportedly reach temperatures of 300 degrees--for at least 20 minutes.

Cincinnati Beacon

A particularly brutal way to die. And Cinitas had been repeatedly fined by OSHA for the same safety violations that killed Mr. Torres-Gomez.

"Federal safety officials have called for a $2.78 million penalty against the Cintas Corporation, the nation's largest supplier of uniforms, for violations at its Tulsa plant, where a worker died when he was pulled into a large dryer.

Representative Phil Hare, Democrat of Illinois, said yesterday, "OSHA's findings prove that Cintas inaction led to the death of Mr. Torres Gomez despite the company's ridiculous allegations that he tried to commit suicide or was too stupid to operate the machinery."

NY Times

Hmm. Cintas spin. It's enough to kill.

Cintas spokeswoman Pamela Lowe said it was Cintas' main public relations agency, doing "a wide range of corporate communications for us."
"I'll tell you that Cintas is pleased with the work that Burson has done," she said.


LA Times
Connect the dots. Triangulation. Union Busting. Blackwater. Here's another: The Security Industrial State Lobbyists Paying for Future "Access" to Hillary Clinton:

Just days after the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, Hillary Clinton and several Democratic lawmakers will be getting uncomfortably cozy with moneyed interests who have stood to reap billions in post-9/11 homeland security spending, watchdog groups say.

Edwards Campaign Calls Out Clinton for Lobbyist Fundraiser Today (quoting abc news)

No amount of PR can hide the truth.
Mr. Torres-Gomez' son Emmanuel Torres-Gomez testifying before a Congressional committte:

On March 6, 2007, my father was killed while working at a Cintas laundry in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He was reportedly dragged into an industrial dryer by a conveyor belt. This has been devastating for us. In 2005, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration fined Cintas for not putting guards on a dryer at a laundry in New York. The equipment that was unguarded in that case was similar to the equipment involved in my father's death. If the company had added the guards, which it knew was required by OSHA, my father would be alive today...
My father's death was preventable.

My Father's Death was Preventable

Please also check out Uniform Justice. Do what you can to help the Teamsters and UniteHere unionize Cintas and prevent another horrific death like that suffered by Eleazar Torres-Gomez.

Which side will The Democratic Party be on? The Side of Money or the Side of The People?

John Edwards is right:

"we don't want to replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats."

For some, it may be a matter of life and death.

Sunday, October 7, 2007

Fr. John Dear's Sermon on the Lesson of the Burmese Monks

by Karita Hummer









Remember and honor the Burmese Monks by learning the lesson they are teaching us. Prize our liberty and use it to help the world.


Cross-posted from John Edwards Blog

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/10/6/33656/7005


Fr. John Dear's Sermon on the Lesson of the Burmese Monks

user icon Karita Hummer in Quick Posts Feed of
10/06/2007 at 8:58 PM EST



Fr. John Dear is a very inspiring peace activist. Fr. Dear always quite eloquently calls on us to express our moral beliefs in justice and peace through community activism.

Yesterday, he wrote about the beautiful example the Buddhist monks of Burma have been for the world. The Burmese monks who bravely stood up to the repressive regime in Burma gave a lesson to all of us who would want to bring justice to our country and the world. There is a time to stand up and be counted. They did so, and with their blood, gave the world precious inspiration.

In the spirit of Ghandi and Martin Luther King, the Monks demonstrated their love and devotion to the cause of justice.

Just as John Edwards quoted Martin Luther King, there comes a time when "Silence is Betrayal". In their sacrifice, the Burmese monks stood up for justice for the people of their country, and, indeed, for us all, and in this way kept faith with people everywhere.

Let us remember them.

Fr. Dear ended his article with these comments:

"And so what to do? Surely pray for the Burmese monks and civilians behind prison walls. Pray for Burma's liberation and for the return of the noble Aung San Suu Kyi. More, join the growing chorus to pressure China, host of the next Olympics. Demand that China work for an end to Burma's repression. Call for sanctions against U.S. oil companies operating in Burma, beginning with Chevron. Study the situation (see www.irrawaddy.org and www.buddhistnews.tv). Support solidarity groups (see www.uscampaignforburma.org and www.burmacampaign.org.uk).

Most of all, take to the streets. March for peace. Put your spirituality of peace on display. Emulate the marching monks and practice creative nonviolence down Main Street, America, and say, like them, No to occupation, No to injustice, No to war. And fund the peace movement, not the war machine. Then turn your begging bowl upside down.

As "the Lady" (Aung San Suu Kyi) pleads, let's use our liberty to promote theirs." Rev. John Dear, The Martyrdom of Burma's Marching Monks
by, Published on Thursday, October 4, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007 10/04/4308

It is the spirit of activism from a deep and moral center, insistence on justice in all matters, and reverence for human rights that must infuse the next Presidency in America. This is why I feel at home in the John Edwards campaign: hoping for peace in the world, and justice and human rights for all, here and everywhere.

America must become the standard for such a cause.

Karita Hummer
San Jose, CA
SCV 4 Edwards, Co-Captain

"Come join us in electing John Edwards President!"

"Public Financing & Serving Two Masters" by Bruce McF gets Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award




Recipient of Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award


Cross-posted from John Edwards Blog

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/10/7/165925/344#4

Public Financing & Serving Two Masters

user icon BruceMcF in Diaries Feed of BruceMcF's Diary
10/07/2007 at 4:59 PM EST

Crossposted from Ohio4Edwards

What is the real, strategic resource for a political campaign? Is it time? Money? Enthusiastic supporters? Insider support?

All of those are useful things to have, but the real strategic resource is priority. You cannot divide your message between too many contradictory messages without getting lost in the static. You cannot serve two or more masters, serve each with the same determination, and serve any of them well.

Join me after the fold to think more deeply about what John Edwards decision on public financing means about this campaign.

The priorities of the campaign is the main issue of the decision on public financing. After accepting public financing, John Edwards knows that he has a maximum amount he had to raise ... and then, he can simply be done with fund-raising on his own behalf, and give himself full time to the campaign and to building up his grassroots/netroots base. And if he wins the nomination, throw himself into leading fundraisers for the DNC and for individual candidates for the House and Senate, just as he did in 2006.

If he pushes a message that slows down contributions from big ticket donors, it just means that he has to keep fund raising a bit longer ... and if he pushes a message that speeds up contributions from federally matched small ticket donors, he can stop fund raising a bit sooner. But either way, there is an actual end to it.

Senators Clinton and Obama, locked in a fund-raising arms race, cannot upset the apple cart. They have to keep modulating their message so that it can appeal both to primary voters and to big ticket contributers. We see this most clearly with Senator Clinton, who is for ending the war in Iraq, except not really (see clip above), and wouldn't give Bush support for going to war if she knew then what she knows now, except not really, and waited six months, long after the positive reviews were in for John Edwards plan for Universal health care, before she proposed the same basic plan herself.

John Edwards has a fixed amount of money to aim for, and an uncapped amount of volunteer grassroots and netroots support to mobilize.

He has, in short, decided which Master comes first, and its us. We are the ones who are going to be driving grassroots/netroots 527's to take the fight to the Republican nominee in the summer. We are the ones who will change the face of DNC fundraising. We are the ones who are going to be hustling to get out the crowd when John Edwards is headlining a Small Change for Big Change event, fund-raising directly for our own candidates to get over the Blue Dogs in the House and the Republican master of Stalling tactics in the Senate.

And in the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, that's the way its supposed to be.

[NB. The final paragraph is focused on an important issue in Ohio in particular, but the point is relevant to many "battleground" states.]

Finally, its no secret that in the districts where we will be fighting to overcome the Republican gerrymander of our state, John Edwards will do much more good for our candidates than Senator Clinton. And the commitment to public financing only reinforces that ... instead of flying in to fundraisers through the summer, before the convention, taking money out of safe districts, John Edwards will be free to raise resources and profile for our candidates in tough districts.