Strong Democrats with Simple Politics

Liberals to Dem leaders: Hold a vote just on extending middle class tax cuts. "Now Dem Reps. Raul Grijalva and Lynn Woolsey, the two co-chairs of the House Progressive Caucus, have endorsed this approach, sending a letter to Nancy Pelosi asking her to carry it out:"

As Co-Chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, we would like to reiterate our support for President Obama's Fiscal Year 2011 budget proposal that would extend the Bush tax rates for the middle class, but permit the tax levels to return to previous levels for single taxpayers making more than $200,000 or married couples making more than $250,000. We respectfully request that we have a Caucus discussion regarding our position before any proposal is brought to the Floor.... We believe extending the Bush tax cuts would be a giveaway to the nation's wealthiest people and would significantly increase government debt. This debt, in turn, will be paid by the lower and middle classes through increased interest payments and decreased social services for generations to come. This astronomical sum could instead be used to close our budget deficit. It is critical that we pass President Obama' s middle-class tax proposal without providing an even greater lift for the wealthiest Americans who don't need it.

ObamaCare Delivers!

Extreme (Medi-Cal) Makeover There’s no question the Affordable Care Act, the new federal health reform law, will transform California’s – and the nation’s – health care system. And a big part of the transformation will occur in the Medicaid Program, known as Medi-Cal in California. Medi-Cal, which has humbly provided health coverage to millions of low-income children, seniors, and persons with disabilities for 45 years, is due for a makeover. In a new CBP report, we project that by 2019, Medi-Cal coverage could climb to as high as 10.5 million under the new health law. In contrast, the program currently serves more than 7 million individuals, with approximately 500,000 more Californians eligible, but not enrolled. This significant expansion of Medi-Cal eligibility, and likely enrollment of millions of previously uninsured Californians, offers new opportunities. First, we estimate that generous federal funding will allow California to draw down nearly $30 in federal funds for each state dollar it invests in coverage for newly eligible adults between 2014 and 2019. Thus, for an extraordinarily modest investment, the state could potentially provide more than a million Californians with comprehensive health coverage. Second, the new health law declares that any person with an income below 138 percent of the federal poverty line is eligible, which makes it easier for certain individuals to enroll and stay enrolled in Medi-Cal. California Health and Human Services Secretary Kim Belshe said last week that Medi-Cal will be a program “grounded in covering people,” and federal officials are urging a new “triple-E” mantra – “Eligibility Equals Enrollment.” The transformation of Medi-Cal couldn’t come at a better time. As recent Census data have shown, the share of nonelderly Californians with job-based coverage has declined significantly since the beginning of the decade. Soon, Medi-Cal may help to fill that gap. – Hanh Kim Quach

Remember Congressman Tim Ryan's rant against Bush from October 2004? Well, he's still at it:


h/t: Americablog

Bill Maher: Is This as Good as It Gets From Obama?

Yeah, I'm disappointed, too. I thought we were sweeping into power; I thought change meant Change. I believed all that talk about another First 100 Days, a la Roosevelt. Well, that didn't happen. The question is, is this as good as it gets from Obama, or is he pacing himself? He may have a four and eight-year plan and they included a first year of just gettin' to know you and not gonna rock the boat too much. Well, Mission Accomplished on that. It's still too early to lose hope in a guy as smart and talented as Barack Obama. But I would counsel him to remember: If you're going undercover to infiltrate how Washington works, so you become one of them for a while, to gain their confidence, well, it can be just like all those movies where a cop goes deep, deep, DEEP undercover with drug people and -- fuck, he's a drug addict, too! Logic tells me that really smart guys like Obama and Rahm Emanuel know better what they're doing than I do. They certainly know things I don't know. I think we have the same general goals and beliefs. And this is what they do for a living -- I wouldn't even try it. But I will never stop having this doubt: that maybe if they had really charged in there riding the forceful energy of the historic election, and acted like it was an emergency moment -- which it was -- they could have gotten some big victories right up front, and there really could have been an historic "first hundred days" for this administration and the country. Instead of what happened, which is the Obamas got a dog. It could have worked -- the country had given its endorsement to "...and now for something completely different." There might have been a way to knock the Republicans back on their heels right away, with the argument that "The American people demanded we make these changes, and you are unpatriotic to stand in their way." We'll never know. Because that moment passed, and now it could follow the pattern of World War I and devolve into boring, static trench warfare where nothing really gamechanging happens while both sides slowly bleed to death. That said, I do not forget that if the election had gone the other way, we'd right now have a barter economy and be at war with Honduras.

Obama to Progressives: I don't need you anymore

Jane Hamsher trashes the Obama Administration for methodically pushing Progressives aside. Remember, it was the Progressives who most actively campaigned for Obama in 2008, both in the primaries and the general election.

Van Jones: A Moment of Truth For Liberal Institutions in the Veal Pen I first met Van Jones when he was honored last year by the Campaign for America's Future at their gala dinner. He was being swarmed by all of the liberal institutional elite, who just could not be more full of praise for the impressive environmental leader and prison reform organizer. Everybody wanted Van Jones on their board. Everyone wanted him at their fundraisers. Everyone wanted a piece of his formidable limelight. Now he's been thrown under the bus by the White House for signing his name to a petition expressing something that 35% of all Democrats believed as of 2007 -- that George Bush knew in advance about the attacks of 9/11. Well, that and calling Republicans "assholes." I'm pretty sure that if you search through the histories of every single liberal leader at the CAF dinner that night, they have publicly said that and worse. So where are all the statements defending Van Jones by those who were willing to exploit him when it served their purpose? Why aren't they standing up and defending one of their own, who has done nothing that probably the majority of people in the Democratic party haven't done at one time or another? Is he no longer "one of their own?" Someone asked me over the weekend to be more explicit about what the term "veal pen" means: The veal crate is a wooden restraining device that is the veal calf's permanent home. It is so small (22" x 54") that the calves cannot turn around or even lie down and stretch and is the ultimate in high-profit, confinement animal agriculture.(1) Designed to prevent movement (exercise), the crate does its job of atrophying the calves' muscles, thus producing tender "gourmet" veal. About 14 weeks after their birth, the calves are slaughtered. The quality of this "food," laden with chemicals, lacking in fiber and other nutrients, diseased and processed, is another matter. The real issue is the calves' experience. During their brief lives, they never see the sun or touch the Earth. They never see or taste the grass. Their anemic bodies crave proper sustenance. Their muscles ache for freedom and exercise. They long for maternal care. They are kept in darkness except to be fed two to three times a day for 20 minutes. Soon after the election, the Administration began corralling the big liberal DC interest groups into a variety of organizations and communication networks through which they telegraphed their wishes -- into a virtual veal pen. The 8:45 am morning call co-hosted by the "liberal" Center for American Progress, Unity 09, and Common Purpose are just a few of the overt ways that the White House controls its left flank and maintains discipline. My own experience with the Veal Pen came indirectly, when some of them had the temerity to launch a campaign against Blue Dogs. They were rebuked and humiliated in front of their peers as a lesson to them all at a Common Purpose meeting, which is run by lobbyist Erik Smith. White House communications director Ellen Moran attends. It isn't an arms-length relationship between these groups and the administration. A few weeks ago, Rahm Emanuel showed up at a Common Purpose meeting and called these liberal groups "fucking stupid" for going after Blue Dogs on health care and ordered them not to do so any more. Since that time, to the best of my knowledge, none of them have. These organizations may kid themselves that they're doing no harm, but that's not true. They are the institutional liberal validators who telegraph to liberals that there are problems, that things are happening that are not good for them. They are trusted to decode the byzantine rituals of government and let the public know when their interests are not being served, that it's time to pay attention and start making a racket. When they fail to perform that task, the public is left with a vague feeling of anxiety, intuitively understanding that something is wrong but not knowing who or what to blame. When the White House met with bankers after the AIG scandal and they said they didn't want to be criticized for getting huge bonuses paid for by taxpayers, the White House complied and "cooled their rhetoric." The President told the public that Timothy Geithner had been instructed to do everything in his power to claw back those bonuses, and the House passed a bill doing just that. But it died in the Senate. You remember all those campaigns by the unions, by the online groups, by liberal economics and finance organizations pushing the Senate to take it up? Yeah, me either. Which means that the teabaggers were in perfect position to harvest all of the discontent over the bank bailout, and no coherent liberal critique was offered. I heard it over and over again -- if you wanted to criticize the White House on financial issues, your institutional funding would dry up instantly. The Obama campaign successfully telegraphed to donors that they should cut off Fund for America, which famously led to its demise. It wasn't the last time something like that happened -- just ask those who were receiving institutional money who criticized the White House and saw their funding cut, at the specific request of liberal institutional leaders who now principally occupy their time by brown nosing friends and former co-workers in the White House. And so the groups in the DC veal pen stay silent. They leadership gets gets bought off by cocktail parties at the White House while the interests of their members get sold out. How many have openly pushed back against the Administration on Don't Ask, Don't Tell or DOMA? Well, not many. Most tried to satisfy their LGBT members by outsourcing activism to other organizations, or proving their bona fides by getting involved in the Prop 8 battle that is not directly toxic to the White House. It's a chickenshit sidestep that betrays their members in the interest of personal gain, which they justify with feeble self-serving palliatives about the importance of "maintaining a seat at the table." Where are they on health care? Why aren't they running ads against the AMA, the hospitals, the insurance industry barons who have $700 million in stock options, PhRMA, the device manufacturers and the White House for doing back room deals with all of the above? Why are they not calling for the White House to release the details of those secret deals? Because they are participating in those deals, instead of trying to destroy them. Well, that and funneling millions of dollars in pass-throughs to their consultant friends that they are supposed to be spending on the health care fight. The truth is -- they've all been sucked into insulating the White House from liberal critique, and protecting the administration's ability to carry out a neoliberal agenda that does not serve the interests of their members. They spend their time calculating how to do the absolute minimum to retain their progressive street cred and still walk the line of never criticizing the White House. Liberals are told that the public option is an acceptable sacrifice such that we don't repeat the 54 seat swing to the GOP after health care failed in 1994. The President told Progressive members of Congress that they should think about the poor Blue Dogs (who by happy coincidence are sucking up all the health care lobbying dollars) who might face tough elections in 2010. Well, now that you bring it up, let's talk about 1994. The election came on the heels of NAFTA, which demoralized the liberal base and depressed turnout. Even as the GOP works hard to rile up their teabaggers base and push turnout numbers up for the 2010 midterm, Democrats are watching the public option die and seeing Van Jones thrown into the meat grinder so Blue Cross and the Blue Dogs can get a room. Telling progressives to go Cheney themselves to save the Blue Dogs could have horrendous consequences on downticket races across the country. So where are the liberal groups in all of this? Van Jones was a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. Where are they? As Jeremy Scahill notes, I guess they have better things to do, like argue for more war: Reading the Center for American Progress‘ new report supporting President Obama’s escalation of the US war against Afghanistan is a very powerful reminder of how much neoliberals and neocons are alike. This, of course, is not some genius observation, particularly since CAP and the neocons are making it hard to miss, what with their love triangle with the war. Indeed, CAP’s launch event for its report, "Sustainable Security in Afghanistan: Crafting an Effective and Responsible Strategy for the Forgotten Front," included a leading neocon, Frederick Kagan and was promoted by William Kristol’s new version of the Project for a New American Century, the Foreign Policy Initiative. So, here is part of what we are seeing unfold: Running parallel to the bi-partisan war machine within the official government is a coordinated campaign in the shadow government — the think tanks. Or, as Naomi Klein describes them, the people paid to think by the makers of tanks. CAPs particular role in this campaign appears to be attempting to sell Obama’s war. CAP's John Podesta is also a partner in the Podesta Group, his brother's lobbying shop that is representing WalMart against the Employee Free Choice Act. This morning on Fox & Friends, Podesta wouldn't say a word in Jones' defense for doing something no worse than what elected Republican members of Congress do on a daily basis. The message is loud and clear: incur the wrath of the right wing, and you're on your own. Wow, is that a way to encourage your team or what. If these groups, if these liberal leaders, let Jones just hang there while Glenn Beck pounds his chest and celebrates the scalp, we have no liberal institutions. What we have are a bunch of neoliberal enablers who have found a nice comfortable place in the DC establishment that they don't want to jeopardize, a place on the new K-Street gravy train that they don't want to lose. Dropping Van Jones from their rolodex is a small price to pay. If there is going to be a serious progressive movement in this country capable of standing up for health care against an industry that spends $1.4 million a day on lobbying, we can't just look to the members of the Progressive Caucus and say "hey, you, get something done." They need cover. They need to know that they will be supported. And people like Van Jones who have given their lives to causes we say we value like prison reform and environmental advocacy need to know that they will be defended, and not handed over to Glenn Beck as an acceptable casualty in the battle for K-Street dollars. So to all you liberal organizations in the "veal pen" -- this is your moment of truth. I get all your emails. And the next Common Purpose meeting is probably on Tuesday. If you can't get it together to at least put out a statement of support for Van Jones and condemn the White House for using him as a sacrificial lamb to right wing extremists that will devour us all if left unchecked, it's time to add "proudly liberal only when it doesn't matter" to your logo and be done with it.

Fortunately (or not, depending on your POV) Obama's got three more years to adjust his current course, which is represented by his (in)actions on torture accountability, gay marriage, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, healthcare, climate change, economic and financial policies, and an assortment of other campaign promises on which he is addressing too slowly for Progressives. Are the Jane Hamshers of America too impatient? Time will tell....

(Note: edited 9-14-09)

Some spineless Democrats actually made the effort and found their spines:


When will the remaining Democrats stop kowtowing to the shrinking group of extremely loud Conservatives?

I never thought that I'd agree this completely with Bill Maher. The important part of this starts at the 1:57 mark.

Mysteries of Logical Reasoning

(1) Anyone who favors marijuana legalization just wants to get high without being hassled, and anyone who favors drug decriminalization generally is or wants to be a drug user. (2) Anyone who opposes a return to alcohol prohibition is almost certainly an out-of-control drunk. (3) Anyone who cares about gay marriage or advocates for equal rights for gay couples is a closet homosexual who just wants to have sex with people of the same gender. The only reason anyone would care about that issue is if one wants to have gay sex. (4) Anyone who believes in free speech rights for Communists obviously opposes private property ownership and craves Stalinism. Anyone who believes in free assembly rights for neo-Nazis secretly admires Hitler. (5) Anyone who believes abortion should be legal just wants to have reckless sex without consequences. (6) Anyone who advocates habeas corpus rights for accused terrorists or who opposes torture harbors sympathy for Islamic extremism and approves of indiscriminate violence against civilians. (7) Anyone who opposes unrestrained government surveillance must be doing bad things in private that they want to hide. (8) Anyone who believes in the freedom to practice a certain religion is probably an adherent of that religion and is motivated by a desire to practice it without interference. Why is most everyone capable of understanding the egregious, illogical stupidity of propositions (2)-(8) -- based on the bleedingly obvious premise that one can advocate the freedom to do X for reasons other than a desire to do X -- while so many people embrace the equally illogical and stupid reasoning of proposition (1) as though it so self-evidently true that it requires no discussion? -- Glenn Greenwald

What he said....

"....I urge everyone to take a deep breath, realize that part of your fear is being motivated by the same people who scared us into the Iraq War, understand that there are plenty of alternatives as outlined on this blog over the last week and a half, and consider the fact that while there is a serious credit problem, simply giving $700 billion to the people who created the problem has more of a chance of making the problem worse than solving it. "Those of us who oppose this plan oppose it not out of some desire to make common cause with right-wing Republicans, nor out of some sense of "purity" nor out of a desire to see the village burned to save it. We oppose it because we believe it will do irreparable harm to our country and potentially CREATE the Second Great Depression its backers purport to care about stopping. And the idea that because the market went down during the day it means voting down the House bill was a bad idea is so fascist and anti-democratic it's hard to comprehend. That line of thinking overtly suggests that legislators in a democracy should legislate solely in the interest of what market speculators - not their constituents - want on a given day. "Let me be clear: I have a modest retirement account that I've worked hard to save. I'm worried when I see what's happened to the market. But I also realize that while Wall Street says this is a new crisis, there's been a health care, wage, job and pension crisis that's been going on for the last decade - and so forgive me if I find it a bit ridiculous that while no one said we had to act quickly on those life-and-death crises, we are supposed to nonetheless see this banking sector problem as Armageddon that demands handing over 5% of our entire economy to one unelected political appointee (Henry Paulson). In that sense, all the alarmism - especially coming from such a discredited Washington crowd - rings a bit hollow. "I'm not saying there's not a credit problem - there is. But we cannot let the authoritarians use that credit problem as a rationale to trample our deliberative democracy in the name of helping their cronies. If we hand over $700 billion to one man - Henry Paulson - under insane deadline demands, we are quite literally subverting our democracy to the whims of authoritarian capitalism, flown under the banner of kleptocratic socialism. Those of us who hope Congress says "hell no" aren't rejoicing at our economic turmoil - we're the ones who have been predicting it, and who think the way to prevent things from getting worse are to actually do something other than giving money to the same people that got us to this awful point." - - - David Sirota

"Wake Up, America!"

It’s Election Day, 2008. We Democrats are giving America a wake up call. Wake up America. In 2001, the oil companies, the war contractors and the neo-con artists seized the economy, and have added four trillion dollars of unproductive spending to the national debt. We now pay four times more for defense, three times more for gasoline and home heating oil, and twice what we paid for health care. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, their homes, their health care, their pensions. Trillions of dollars for an unnecessary war paid with borrowed money. Tens of billions of dollars in cash and weapons disappeared into thin air, at the cost of the lives of our troops and innocent Iraqis, while all the President’s oilmen are maneuvering to grab Iraq’s oil. Borrowed money to bomb bridges in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. No money to rebuild bridges in America. Money to start a hot war with Iran. Now we have another cold war with Russia while the American economy has become a game of Russian roulette. If there was an Olympics for misleading, mismanaging and misappropriating this Administration would take the gold. World records for violations of national and international laws. They want another four year term to continue to alienate our allies, spend our children’s inheritance and hollow out our economy. We can’t afford it America. Wake up America, the insurance companies took over health care. Wake up America, the pharmaceutical companies took over drug pricing. Wake up America, the speculators took over Wall Street. Wake up America, they want to take your Social Security. Wake up America, multinational corporations took over our trade policies, factories are closing, good paying jobs lost. Wake up, America. We went into Iraq for oil. The oil companies want more. War against Iran will mean $10 a gallon gasoline. The Oil Administration wants to drill more --into your wallet. Wake up, America. Weapons contractors want more. An Iran war will cost five to ten trillion dollars. This Administration can tap our phones. They can’t tap our creative spirit. They can open our mail. They can’t open economic opportunities. They can track our every move. They lost track of the economy while the cost of food, gasoline, and electricity skyrockets. They skillfully played our post-911 fears and allowed the few to profit at the expense of the many. Everyday we get the color orange, while the oil companies, the insurance companies, the speculators, the war contractors get the color green. Wake up America. This is not a call for you to take a new direction from right to left. This is call for you to go from down to up. Up with the rights of workers. Up with wages. Up with fair trade. Up with creating millions of good paying jobs rebuilding our bridges, ports and water systems. Up with creating millions of sustainable energy jobs to lower the cost of energy, lower carbon emissions and protect the environment. Up with health care for all. Up with education for all. Up with home ownership. Up with guaranteed retirement benefits. Up with Peace. Up with Prosperity. Up with the Democratic Party Up with Obama -Biden Wake up, America! Wake up, America! -Dennis Kucinich

UPDATE: Obama edited Kucinich's speech last night. Come on Obama, that would have been the best line of the night!

"They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20."

A plea to the younger voters:

Stirling Newberry

From The Agonist on the SOTU speech.

They did do nothing to deserve the name, "Americans". Showing that he is untouched by self-reflection, intellectual honesty, or self-doubt, George W. Bush has delivered a hard partisan, nasty and crassly self-promoting state of the union to a Congress. He demanded total acquiescence to his economic, foreign policy and domestic agenda, and high handedly threatened that Congress repeatedly if they did not yield to his every demand. Piling on dog whistle after dog whistle to anti-government and anti-tax zealots, in direct contradiction to being the most free spending executive in post-war history, he threw in the face of that same Congress his own duplicity on the matter. Trillions for corruption, but a few spare pennies for everyone else. Bush was never a uniter, he was never interested in bi-partisanship, and he was always interested only in imposing his will and vision on America. A series of Congresses, filled with the corrupt and the craven, not merely bent it's knee to the monarchial impulse, but eagerly participated in outrages against the Constitution that Bush now so gaily flaunts only the first three words of. Because the faith of the founders was in the Union, that web of people, states, government, law and history which was bound together by wars and conflicts, and given a living presence in a document which is fouled by the expectorant of signing statements, secret courts, and overturned elections. It is a mark of shame on this time, and on every American, that we have tolerated such continuous stream of lawless outrages by an executive that knows no honor, and a string of Congresses that have chosen to slop at the trough of pork and personal privilege, before even beginning to move a finger. The results show. This President has been mired below 50% approval for his entire second term, and below 40% for most of it. He is viewed highly negatively as a person by more people who like him even a little. And Congress? This Congress has an approval of 18%, a level which means that were the public given the option of abolishing Congress, they might well pass it by a constitutional super-majority. A foolish Speaker of the House has refused to prosecute high crimes and misdemeanors in the executive, and has cut deals on stimulus that shaft the poor, the children and the unfortunate in order to pile gifts to the extremely wealthy. A conservative Senate Majority Leader combined with her to pass more and more blank checks to the biggest squanderer in history. And two members of this inaugust Congress now vie for the nomination, topping each other in how little of the last eight years they want to undo. In poll after poll, both of them run double digits behind a generic Democrat running for the Presidency. Perhaps because the public understands how little they deserve that name. Someone must say these things, and those that curry for favor or jobs in the government or with a party cannot do so, and will not do so. Those who clamor for attention will find the road blocked by a media which rallied behind a unity towards an illegal war, and now are eager to smirk at the failures of policies that they failed to oppose. This was not an unfortunate outcome, but a clear and obvious result and culmination of exactly what was obvious on a chill night in Florida, when word came down from the Supreme Court that once an election was stolen, it could never be returned to its owners, and Americans had no right to vote for who would occupy the executive office. This is not a period of certainty, but of absolute certainty. America's position in the world is diminished, our share of global GDP is down, our dollar is at its weakest in memory, our credibility destroyed by outrageous lies to the world, our military ground up by the grit of the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, while the more important wars remain unfought, and more dangerous prey remains unfettered. The clock of an aging baby boom has gone from the ticking of a watch, to the tolling of a bell. It will be midnight chiming soon. News is written by the winners, history by the survivors. Let me tell you what history will have to say about this President and all who enabled him: They did do nothing to deserve the name, "Americans". Go rally behind your spigot of falsehoods, around a President who has broken the laws, defamed the honor of the nation and obliterated constitutional protections that even the Kings of England would not have touched. But realize that unless and until there is a democratic revolution against this new age of absolutism, that there is only one road that we will walk, and that road is down, into the abyss of fallen imperial delusion, and among the shattered stone ruins of fallen crowns. But realize the people have turned against you. We do not merely distrust you, we hate you. We loathe your privileges and your powers. We curse your name in every day language. You can shroud your ears for many years, but with each haughty and high handed slap you deliver to the public's face, there are painful lashes coming from Clio's pen. You will not be forgotten, but remembered along side slave holders who would burn the Union down rather than be human beings, and along side the cult of gold that crushed American into Great Depression. Look upon the busts of Harding and Hoover, and reflect the long hard work you have done to give some other generation a chance to be great, by being worthy of the company of the incompetent and the incomprehensible. Let history write what ruin the arrogance of this age will bring, I say it now, because I have no love for your king. - Stirling Newberry

Bill Moyers' tribute to President Johnson as an explanation of Hillary Clinton's recent remarks about Martin Luther King Jr.:

Why do we need a progressive government? How else would we prevent this from happening?

UC policy report says chemical exposures cost state estimated $2.6 billion By Sarah Yang, Media Relations | 17 January 2008 BERKELEY – Serious gaps in existing laws regulating the production and use of hazardous chemicals fail to protect public health and the environment, according to a new report to be released Thursday, Jan. 17, by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, and UCLA. As a result of this inadequate oversight, chemical and pollution-related diseases among children and workers in California cost the state's insurers, businesses and families an estimated $2.6 billion in direct and indirect costs, says the report, which includes a set of recommended policy reforms for the state. In 2004, more than 200,000 California workers were diagnosed with deadly, chronic diseases - such as cancer or emphysema - attributable to chemical exposures in the workplace, according to the report. Another 4,400 died as a result of those diseases. The new findings, based upon well-established methodology for analyzing economic impact, indicate that those diseases resulted in $1.4 billion in both direct medical costs and indirect costs that include lost wages and benefits. An additional $1.2 billion in direct and indirect costs is attributed to 240,000 cases of preventable childhood diseases in California related to environmental exposure to chemical substances, the report says. The existing problems and recommended policy changes are detailed in the report, "Green Chemistry: Cornerstone to a Sustainable California," which has been endorsed by 127 faculty members from seven UC campuses, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The California Environmental Protection Agency commissioned the UC Berkeley and UCLA Centers for Occupational and Environmental Health (COEH) to prepare the report. COEH is a multi-disciplinary research program based at the UC campuses of Berkeley, Davis and San Francisco in Northern California, and at UC Irvine and UCLA in Southern California. Additional funding for the report came from the UC Office of the President, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "This report, for the first time, puts cost estimates on the consequences for Californians of current chemical and product management policies," said Dr. John Balmes, COEH director, UC Berkeley professor of environmental health sciences and UCSF professor of medicine. "California has shown that creating new jobs and investment opportunities can go hand in hand with protecting human health and the environment. We have been doing this with vehicle emissions and energy use, and this new report makes it obvious that we will need to do the same with chemicals and products." The report was authored by Michael Wilson and Dr. Megan Schwarzman, both COEH research scientists at UC Berkeley's School of Public Health; Timothy Malloy, professor at the UCLA School of Law; Elinor Fanning, COEH assistant director of research at UCLA; and Peter Sinsheimer, a COEH affiliate and director of the Pollution Prevention Education & Research Center at Occidental College. The report presents data from the state's Department of Toxic Substances Control showing that 61 of the state's 85 largest hazardous waste sites are leaking toxic material directly into groundwater. In addition, an estimated 1 million California women of reproductive age have blood mercury levels that exceed what the U.S. EPA considers safe for fetal development, and biomonitoring studies have detected more than 100 synthetic chemicals and pollutants in breastmilk, umbilical cord blood, and other bodily fluids and tissues, the report says. With global chemical production predicted to increase 330 percent by 2050, health problems related to environmental contamination are likely to grow unless comprehensive steps are taken now, say the report authors. Green chemistry  the use of renewable and safer raw materials, manufacturing processes and products  offers a sustainable solution, according to the report. "Research conducted in the past decade has provided ample evidence of significant health impacts from exposure to toxic chemicals," said John Froines, COEH director at UCLA and professor of environmental health sciences. "It is timely for California to reduce the use of toxic agents through innovative technological approaches available through green chemistry. New policies that prevent hazards rather than cleaning up problems after the fact will foster innovation and help green chemistry emerge as a central part of our economy." The report calls on California to lead the nation in implementing a comprehensive approach to the management of chemicals and products. Policy recommendations include: ...Passing new laws to remedy the insufficient data available on the toxicity of chemicals so California businesses, regulators and consumers can make informed choices about the products they use ...Providing California agencies with a new legal framework to enable them to act when there are reasonable concerns about a product's safety, even when complete hazard or tracking data are unavailable ...Investing in the design of chemicals, materials and manufacturing processes that are inherently safer for humans Some of these recommendations echo a 2006 UC report to the California Legislature on green chemistry policy, which contributed to the introduction of new state legislation in 2007 to require improved reporting on the sale of high quantity chemicals and reductions in some uses of the most toxic chemicals. That legislation is expected to be reintroduced in 2008. A PDF of the report is available for download at: http://coeh.berkeley.edu/greenchemistry/briefing or http://www.coeh.ucla.edu/greenchemistry.htm.

"The US electoral process which we're all suffering through right now, which feels like it's been going on non-stop forever, is replete with continual cries from the leading candidates about some kind of "change". Whatever can they mean? They mean nothing. And the media treats it all like some kind of horse race, a spectator sport. Is there any election system in this world as lacking in intellectual discussion, as hopelessly corrupted by money, and as undemocratic as the one Americans are blessed with? Where else in the world is the candidate with the most votes not necessarily the winner? If we could interview each and every American voter to determine exactly why they voted for a particular candidate, compared to what the actual facts are about that candidate**, and the results were widely publicized, it would be such a national embarrassment the next election might be called off. What does winning an election mean other than that the sales campaign was successful? An outright auction for the presidency would be more efficient, and more honest." - - - William Blum

**Which is why John Edwards, the best candidate by far, and the one who most closely matches the collective will of the people, will never get the nomination.

The Democratic Party Direction

Former Senator from Colorado, Gary Hart, describes how I feel about the direction the Democratic Party must take in the upcoming Presidential election. We have to unload the "Dino Dems" who are weak and obliging the Republi-con Obstructionists. I feel this is the only way Progressives can obtain more control.

...The Democratic party is once again faced with a decision: whether to stay with the known, the familiar, and the "experienced" or whether to accept a new generation of leadership composed of those who have not had power or the experience of governing. If you believe, as I do, that the early 21st century is an age of huge transition -- of globalization, of information, of failed states, of climate change, of rising new powers, and so on -- then leadership hamstrung by old arrangements and commitments will not do... Democrats and Americans are faced with a big decision. Will we play it safe? Or will we embrace the future? This is not a time to put gender or race above what is best for the country or to make superficial choices. We have huge debts and deficits. The climate is rapidly approaching a tipping point. We are stuck in the Middle East. Most of the people in the world do not like us or trust us. Our education system is declining. And the list goes on. Only a new generation of leaders can solve these new challenges, because only a new generation of leaders is unbound by old policies, old commitments and arrangements, old deals and old friendships. This is a time when America must leave old politics behind. This election is about transition not power. We will either move forward or we will go back.

Remarks of Eric Bauman Chair, LA County Democratic Party, at the 2007 California Young Democrats Convention I'm not going to give you the traditional "you're so important” speech. I'm not going to give you the "you are the leaders of tomorrow” speech. I'm not going to give you the "next year's election depends on you” speech. And I'm not going to give you the "you are the future” speech either. I'm going to give the “tomorrow is today” speech. Your tomorrow is today because the geniuses of my generation have already usurped your tomorrow, they have mortgaged your future, and set us on a path of global warfare and on a course of declining hope and prosperity. They have limited your opportunities. They have wiped out the low hanging fruit, taken the path of least resistance, been corrupt, inept and selfcentered. They have even made deals with the devil to keep their wacko ideologues happy…All the while undermining your tomorrow. From ignoring the effects of global climate change to off shoring high paying professional, scientific and technical careers, to limiting educational opportunities, they have blunted your future. By obliterating the budget surplus and the sense of hope for the future, that bridge to the 21st century that, Bill Clinton left us, they have dug the deepest fiscal hole in the history of humankind; they have shut you out of much of your tomorrow. Your tomorrow is now today. Take it from an old hand like me, you can only get your tomorrow back, if you: Demand your government invest in your future. Demand your government look like you, sound like you, think like you and act like you. Demand your government start saving the health of this planet and the health of every person on it. Demand your government provide a high quality education for every child and ensure there is a decent paying job with real benefits for every person who wants one. Demand equality and social justice for every American, for every person. Most of all, you must demand your government stop mortgaging your future, with tax schemes designed to make the rich richer and a war that is costing so many billions of dollars that your great grandchildren will still be paying for it when they are your age. Those in power need to understand that their futures depend on your future and your future is today. I believe it's not too late to save your tomorrow, to regain your future, to build the kind of world you'd like to see. But to do it you have to stand up today! You have to speak out today! You have to commit today! Last year two million young people awoke, went to the polls and began changing the course of America. How many of you have emailed or called a legislator or member of congress to tell them your opinion on the war, the budget, healthcare, climate change, education or the use of torture by our spies and military operatives? How many of you are sick at heart and sick to your stomachs about the direction of our world, our nation and our state? How many of you are committed to the challenge of turning the White House into a blue house next year? If you are ready to create the America of your dreams…the America that is the beacon of hope to all people on earth.... the America that is one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all… then you will stand up today!

Mr. Bauman may have directed this speech to younger Democrats, but I think it still applies to the rest of us.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power." - - Franklin D. Roosevelt

We are still the most powerful and influential nation in history. Everything in this video was directly or indirectly a result of us. Everything in this video could have been prevented by some kind of action (or inaction) by us. We are not and have never been a nation of peace. Let's hope 2008 is the year that we begin the transformation into a nation of peace and civility. The rest of the world WILL follow our lead.

"Who We Are"

In an age of monarchy, we believe in democracy. In an age of executive privilege, we believe in the rule of law. In an age of unjust war, we believe in peace. In an age of torture, we believe in human rights. In an age of terrorism, we believe in stopping it, not manipulating it. In an age of fear, we believe in strength. In an age of empire, we believe in multinationalism. In an age of mass media, we believe in the individual mind. In an age of propaganda, we believe in asking questions. In an age of corporate plutocracy, we believe in human community. In an age of rapacious greed, we believe the Earth is our home. In an age of kakistocracy, we believe in meritocracy. In an age of immunity, we believe in accountability. In an age of class warfare, we believe in liberty and justice for all. In an age of bigotry, we believe in equality. In an age of suppression, we believe in expression. In an age of ignorance, we believe in enlightenment. In an age of religious hypocrisy, we believe in the human conscience. In an age of medievalism, we believe government should be secular. In an age of ideologues, we believe in pragmatics. In an age of arrogance, we believe in humility. In an age of personality, we believe in objectivity. In an age of intolerance, we believe in compassion. In an age of suffering, we believe in reaching a hand. In an age of hatred, we believe in love. In an age of homogenization, we believe in inspiration. In an age of plodding, we believe in song and dance. Turkana - The Left Coaster

Commentator Judith adds:

Where there is ignorance, we believe in education.

Where there is division, we believe in unity.

Where there is falsehood, we believe in truth.