Sarah Palin Needs a Crib Note on Populism

Well, Sarah Palin's been caught at the Tea Party Convention with her own set of crib notes. Apparently,

Web researchers zoomed in on her left palm and found the following words scrawled in black ink: "Energy, Budget cuts (with "budget" crossed out), Tax, Lift American Spirits." In an ironic twist during the speech, Ms. Palin worked in a jab against President Obama's often-mocked use of TelePrompTers.

You can watch the clip below or check out a close-up here.


It's too bad her crib notes are so short.

She could sure use a history lesson on who the Populists were.

And so could the Tea Party conventioneers.

Peter Beinart, an associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York emphasizes that:

By reducing government oversight of Wall Street, as Palin demanded at the Tea Party convention, the Tea Partiers actually strengthen the very moneyed interests that the Populists wanted to restrain.

It's a dangerous time we're living in.

BETWEEN THE LINES SALUTES HOWARD ZINN


HOWARD ZINN, 1922-2010

Historian, activist, and author
of "A People's History of the United States"

Like many in our audience, the producers of Between The Lines Radio Newsmagazine were saddened to hear the news of professor Howard Zinn's death.

Throughout his career, Howard Zinn chronicled the history of our nation from an objective perspective that discarded the jingoism and triumphalism that characterizes most other standard works of American history -- as seen in his groundbreaking and widely read book, "A People's History of the United States." What made Zinn's work so compelling is that he wrote about world events, not from the perspective of kings, queens, presidents, and corporate CEOs, but from regular people who are the true engines of history.

Zinn not only wrote about history, he was an active participant in shaping history through his activism, fighting for peace and justice, from the Vietnam War era to Ronald Reagan's covert wars to overthrow governments in Central America to the Bush (father and son's) wars in the Persian Gulf. No stranger to police batons, tear gas and jail cells, Howard frequently put his body on the line for his beliefs.

Always an enthusiastic and generous supporter of independent media, Zinn drove down from Boston to appear at a public forum organized by WPKN radio on the "Crisis in U.S. Democracy" in New Haven during the mid-1990s -- and always made time to appear as a guest on our radio programs, including Between The Lines.

Howard Zinn was a unique individual in our nation's history, embodying the noble values and character the United States should strive to represent.
We feel privileged to have known professor Zinn and will miss him.

Scott Harris,
for the Between The Lines crew

Here's interviews and a talk by Howard Zinn we've recorded and produced in recent years.
Between The Lines' Executive Producer Scott Harris' Counterpoint interview with Howard Zinn:

• Interview with Howard Zinn on the publication of his book, "A People's History of American Empire," conducted live on April 7, 2008, at WPKN Radio studios (in MP3) (19:54)
  

Between The Lines program audio files featuring Howard Zinn:

• Historian and Activist Howard Zinn Champions
  International Declaration of Human Rights
  at May Day Rally, 2007 in Real Audio
  
  
• Throughout History, Transition to Democracy
  Rare Under Military Occupation in Real Audio, Feb. 11, 2005
  

THE BIG LETDOWN



There were two good things about President Obama’s speech last night: he blasted the Supreme Court for the terrible decision which allows corporations to give unlimited contributions to political candidates, and he said he would end tax cuts for the rich and the oil companies.

I give him credit for these comments, but not much else. On so many key issues, he failed to deliver. And in some instances, he actually plotted a course which takes this country backwards.

On health care, while Obama urged Congress to end their squabbling and pass a reform bill, he wasn’t specific about what he wanted. Why didn’t he stand up and excorciate the health insurance companies for their greed and say he won’t sign bill without a strong public option? Yes, I know centrist Democrats and Republicans wouldn’t like it, but there would be a wave of public support which would put them on the defensive.

While Obama took credit for winding down the war in Iraq, he said almost nothing about the other, equally horrific war in Afghanistan, which continues to cost American lives and drains our treasury of desperately needed resources for domestic programs. This war is going nowhere and is totally unnecessary. More than 800 American soldiers and thousands of civilians have died in this conflict. The war is costing $160 billion a year to prosecute.

I think Obama knows this war is a loser, and that’s why he didn’t dwell on it. Why doesn’t he have the courage to call it off?

Obama emphasized that a big focus of his second year would be jobs, jobs, jobs. He talked about tax breaks for small businesses. That’s OK. But there really has to be a sweeping plan for new employment. U.S. unemployment is at a whopping 10 percent, and most Americans don’t think the recession is over, despite claims by the administration.

While the president mentioned steering Americans into green-collar jobs and lauded the limited stimulus program to date, he wasn’t bold or specific on plans for the future. Obama should have announced a crash program to rebuild our highways, bridges, schools and transportation systems, kind of like a super-WPA. Of course this will cost lots of money, but if the nation can spend trillions on a bailout for Wall Street, certainly hundreds of billions can be put into a jobs program.

All the cost would be made up and more so, through hundreds of thousands of more people working, buying things and paying taxes. Simply put, it would really jumpstart the economy.

But a major public jobs program is not on the radar screen with this president. Instead, Obama has decided to play Reagan-lite, calling for a spending freeze on all discretionary spending, not including defense and homeland security. In other words, education, health care, transportation, housing and social services are going to take a hit.

Why is he pandering to the right?

Obama says the deficit has to be brought under control. But what about weapons spending? Why is the $700 billion plus defense budget --- complete with submarine, plane and missile programs that are no longer needed --- exempt from the budget ax?

Ominously, the president went on to say that by executive order he is setting up a bi-partisan commission that will take a hard look at the cost of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Translation: they plan to cut these programs. This despite the fact that the programs have successfully served hundreds of millions of Americans very well since they started. And with a depressed economy, these forms of government assistance are needed now more than ever.

Like I say, it sounds Reagan-lite.

Did we vote for this?












.

OBAMA LIES ON AFGHAN POLICY




Does President Obama really believe the things he said when he announced his decision to send another 30,000 soldiers to fight in Afghanistan?

Obama said he concluded after a “long review” that it was in “our vital national interest” to send the additional troops, which will bring the level of U.S. military personnel in Afghnistan to more than 100,000.

“I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al-Qaeda,” the president said.

Does he really think that the Taliban, a rag tag group of fighters without modern weaponry or firepower, represent a mortal threat to the United States? Does he believe that al-Qaeda --- which was certainly a powerful terrorist force eight years ago --- still presents a grave danger, when its total number of fighters has been reduced to just over 100?

My opinion is, no, he doesn’t.

Obama, I think, made his decision partly out of politics and partly because of pressure from those who think the U.S. should control all the vital natural resources of the world.

Obama knew there would be a fierce right-wing backlash if he announced he was immediately winding down the Afghan war. Republicans and their myriad of allies in the media would have savaged him, saying he was being “weak” in the face of a foreign enemy. The Democrats as a whole would have been labeled “the party of cut and run.”

My feeling is that Obama could have weathered this storm, in time, considering that half the American people don’t think there’s any value to our being in Afghanistan.

But Obama didn’t want to take a chance, and decided to look strong and macho, rather than doing what’s right. In a figleaf to the left, he did say that in 2011 --- after strengthening the Afghan government forces and stabilizing the country, U.S. forces would begin pulling out. I doubt that highly.

And that leads to the second reason why Obama decided to increase troop levels. American officials, including many in the Pentagon, absolutely do not want a hostile regime like the Taliban taking control in Afghanistan. This has very little to do with fighting terrorism. As noted, the Taliban and a decimated al-Qaeda pose little threat to the United States homeland.

An unfriendly regime in Kabul, however, would complicate U.S. efforts to exploit the vast oil reserves in Central Asia. For years, U.S. planners and corporate officials have coveted the oil and gas in the Caspian Sea basin, in the area just north of Afghanistan. Some of that energy is now being taken out via pipelines running to eastern Europe. Russia and China are also competing for rights to tap oil in the area.

There had been a push by officials of the Houston-based Unocal corporation in the 1990s and then later in 2001 with help from the Bush administration to get a pipeline to transport Central Asian oil and gas south through Afghanistan to ports on the Persian Gulf. Efforts to arrange a deal with the then ruling Taliban government of Afghanistan for the pipeline were unsuccessful. The Taliban had already negotiated an agreement with an Argentinian company for a pipeline and wouldn’t budge on voiding it.

While there has been no talk about it in the press, I believe that there’s still a strong desire to have a U.S.- controlled oil-access route through Afghanistan. That’s a key reason why American military bases have been built there and why the occupation is taking place.

According to Michael Klare, author of “Rising Power, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy,” concern over the safety of vital resource supplies has for decades been a key feature of U.S. strategic planning. But today, given the projected long-term decline in oil supplies, as well as increased competition for oil from countries like China, access to energy is an even bigger factor in planning. “Faced with these dual challenges, Pentagon strategists believe that ensuring U.S. primacy in the global resource struggle must be a top priority of American military policy,” Klare wrote in “The Nation” last year.

One has to believe that the military officials who advised Obama recently on Afghanistan policy made clear the importance of keeping that country under U.S. sway for purposes of oil access. Allowing the Taliban to hang around and possibly retake control of the country runs counter to that goal.

It’s a tragedy on so many levels that Obama made the decision to up the ante in Afghanistan. More than 800 Americans have died so far in the war there, and now hundreds more will die. Thousands of Afghanis will die, on top of a huge toll so far.

The financial cost is staggering. According to Congressman Dennis Kucinich, the Ohio Democrat who wants the U.S. to end the war and pull out, estimates it will cost us $160 billion a year to stay in Afghanistan.

Think of all the better ways that money could be spent --- like creating a massive public jobs program to rebuild the nation’s cities, transportation systems and schools. That would do wonders for the economy.

But no, “Mr. Change,” Barack Obama, has chosen to not lose face by leaving Afghanistan “precipitously.” He’s also going to make sure the U.S. has a pliant government in that country to guarantee we have access to more oil. This at a time when we should be phasing out fossil fuels if we are going to avoid the catastrophic effects of global warming.

Lunacy.



Footnote:
When Obama gave his speech last week at West Point outlining his plans for moving more troops to Afghanistan, he repeated the same lie about the Taliban that Bush had before him. Obama, painting the Taliban as evil, just as Bush did prior to the invasion of Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, said that the Taliban had refused to turn over the head of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden.

The fact is that the Taliban made multiple offers to capture bin Laden and hand him over to the U.S. government, according to several reports. Officials in the Clinton administration had originally been seeking bin Laden because al-Qaeda had been responsible for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Africa and the naval ship, The U.S.S. Cole.

According to Richard W. Behan, the author of “The Fraudulent War,” an offer from the Taliban to turn over bin Laden was waiting for Bush when he became president. Bush stalled on accepting the proposal, and administration officials instead began pressing the Taliban to make a deal that would give American companies like Unocal exclusive rights to run a pipeline through their country. The Taliban refused. Two other offers were made by the Taliban to turn over bin Laden, Behan said, and those were also rejected.

In July, Bush was making preparations for an attack on the Taliban by October, according to a report in the BBC.

Then, Behan said, bin Laden and al-Qaeda struck on 911, killing 3,000 Americans.

Even after 911, Behan wrote, the Taliban --- trying to forestall an American attack --- made offers to hand over bin Laden, as well as shut down al-Qaeda training camps. These offers were also turned down.

Just weeks later, Bush launched the invasion of Afghanistan, telling the American people that the Taliban had failed to turn over the perpetrator of the 911 attacks.

It’s clear the Bush administration was more interested in oil than landing bin Laden, both before and after 911.

And now we have another president repeating the same lie about Taliban non-cooperation, apparently to serve a similar agenda.

RESURRECT TROLLEYS!



I had the good fortune recently to take a trip to Europe. It was my first time there in more than three decades.

Like everyone who travels abroad for more than a few days --- we were there for two weeks --- you have a major time readjustment to get used to when you return, since European countries are 6 to 7 hours ahead. So it’s taken about a week to adjust to the time schedule here and get a proper sleep.

But more than that, I’m trying to get used to the American environment. And I don’t mean the air and water. While in Europe --- we were in Romania, Italy, France and Spain --- there’s so many things to like. For one, you’re treated to a cultural feast. Everywhere you go there’s wonderful old architecture, great museums, and fine little shops, offering goods that are indigenous to that area or country. For food there’s nice cafes and restaurants everywhere and beautiful open air markets with fresh fruits and vegetables as well as wonderful breads and meat products. In general, there’s a lot of diversity in what you can see and what you can buy. People also seem to be enjoying life more, although I saw some notable exceptions.

I come back here, and the thing that struck me right away, was the mundane and unhappy character of American society. Everywhere you go, there’s a chain store --- Staples, Kohls, Stop and Shop, whatever. Everything to fill your material needs, but nothing to feed your soul. An awful lot of uniformity and not much diversity. There is ethnic diversity in some cities like Bridgeport and New Haven where you can find a variety of different ethnic restaurants and shops, but beyond that, there’s not much.

Americans also seem to be a grim bunch. A couple of trips to go shopping after I got back, and all I saw was serious looks. Not a smile to be seen. Interactions with store clerks are perfunctory, bordering on cold. Maybe this is the economy. But the economy’s not great in Europe, either.

I don’t want to paint a black and white picture here. Europe still has major problems and life is still a struggle for many. You can see the contradictions. The fall of communism in eastern Europe and the rush of capitalist investment in the 1990s clearly brought a spurt of commercial growth to poor countries like Romania. Some people have done well in the process, but others have been left behind. When we drove in from the airport to the city of Bucharest, there was an impressive line of new, fancy car dealerships that have cropped up along the main road. Mercedes, Ferrari, Saab. I thought, wow, some people are doing well.

But then, as we slowed down in traffic, it happened. I saw this man, without legs, wending his way through the cars on a board with wheels, sticking his hand up and begging for money. Whew! A few seconds later another guy appeared, trying to hawk what appeared to be fishing rods. The shock of seeing that kind of poverty was repeated when we walked in to see a majestic cathedral in Barcelona. As we entered, there was a line of beggars, some blind, sitting on the floor, pleading for alms.

So all is not well in Euroland. But there’s so much to like, particularly culturally.

One other positive feature of life over there that’s worth noting: transportation modes seemed more efficient and less polluting. When you say the word ‘trolley’ in America, people either give you a blank look or say, ‘oh yeah those old cars that used to run in the cities on tracks a long time ago?’ Well in Europe, at least where we traveled, trolleys were ubiquitous and looked great.

Trolleys are like buses, except they are powered by overhead electrical lines. They run on wheels like buses, or run on tracks like trains. There are no gas emissions from trolleys, so they’re a lot better for the environment.

In both Romania and Spain, neither of which are wealthy countries, there were nice clean trolleys --- also called trams --- carrying people all over in the cities. There were some gas powered buses, but as many trolleys.

There’s also lots of scooters in Europe and most cars are small. I really had to look to spot an SUV.

I noticed the difference when we returned to New York and all the cars were so much bigger and fatter.

If America wants to get serious about tackling global warming and reducing carbon emissions, this country has to get “smaller and smarter” with the way people get around. Mandating the use of compact cars would be a start.

Another great step would be putting trolley systems back in place. Some cities like Baltimore have moved in that direction. Stamford, CT has begun talking about it.

These are hopeful signs. But substantial federal funding for trolley projects in cities would really get things moving.

Fish or cut bait



It’s looking more and more like it’s time to start over on health care reform.

Unless President Obama suddenly turns into a real leader and offers a health insurance plan with a meaningful public option in his speech Wednesday night, it’s time for progressives to fold their tents this year and go all out for a single-payer plan next year.

When Obama first talked about health care reform in his campaign, he talked about cracking down on health insurance companies with tougher regulations and also setting up a government entity that would provide an alternative for consumers seeking health insurance coverage.

I’ve always been a single-payer advocate, so Obamacare didn’t strike me as the very best way to go, since it would keep the insurance companies --- the main villains --- in the ballgame. Nonetheless, I supported his approach initially, with a view that if a bill with tough regulations and a public option could pass, it might be the stepping stone for single payer later on.

But over the past several months, there’s been a sickening display of backpedaling by the president on this issue. Instead of showing leadership and pushing hard for a bill with a public option, he’s wavered in the face of attacks by Republicans about “socialized medicine” and warnings by centrist Democrats in Congress not to be too mean to the insurance companies (the same companies who are rolling in money and just happen to fund their campaigns).

Obama and top officials in his administration have given evasive statements about whether they still support a public option. Some other features about the earlier proposal on health care have also been weakened as well.

So where we stand on this issue is not clear. Hopefully Obama will change course tomorrow and make a firm statement in favor of a public option. But I’m not holding my breath.

One thing that has been heartening in recent days has been that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party along with unions have risen up and told Obama firmly that unless he gets behind a bill with a strong public option, they won’t back it. Also there’s a lot of anger building in the netroots about Obama, and demands that he fight for the kind of change that he promised. Activists at the grassroots helped get this guy elected; now it’s time for him to come through.

If the drive for health care reform dies this year, it may actually be a plus. Next year, progressives and activists won’t have any illusions about help from Obama. They will likely start a massive, broad-based campaign for a Canadian-style health care plan. Support for this will be a litmus test for any Congressional candidates. Vague promises about reform won’t do.

**************

On a related and disturbing note, the health care debate has brought into sharp focus something that is very significant: the power of right-wing and hate radio.

The right wing has always been out there and conservatives for years have had a powerful influence on media. But it has been shocking how far-right “pundits” in the media, particularly on radio, have been able to whip up hysteria on the health care plans and get people to go to town hall meetings to disrupt and say the most idiotic things. In some cases, people have been armed.

Check out the most recent column by Bill Moyers in Salon.com called “Mr. President, It’s Time to Fight,” in which he mentions an essay by media scholar Henry Giroux.

“He describes the growing domination of hate radio as one of the crucial elements in a ‘culture of cruelty,’ increasingly marked by overt racism, hostility and disdain for others, coupled with a simmering threat of mob violence toward any political figure who believes healthcare reform is the most vital of safety nets….,”
writes Moyers.

Indeed, there’s been a fascist tone to statements on right-wing radio and in the behavior of many at the town hall meetings. The atmosphere resembles that of Germany in the 1920s and 30s, when the Nazis spread disinformation and used intimidation to silence the opposition.

Progressives and principled people of all stripes have to speak out against this trend.

Another Way to Stimulate the Economy and
Truly Invest in Our Future: End War Now

Here's a quote from a soldier returning from the Iraq war with post-traumatic stress disorder, a walking "time-bomb":

"I had no job training," he said. "All I know how to do is kill people."

What an antithesis to life ... a war economy which decides that the military is the source of employment of last resort, instilling in young people a life's mission to take life itself away from others. No wonder young soldiers are coming home traumatized, confused and angry, and then being told to deny this violation upon their soul. No wonder they are turning to substance abuse. No wonder they are committing suicide.

We need to adjust our priorities so that everyone can fulfill their life's potential. Life should be about investing in the dreams we all share -- dreams filled with joy, creativity, love, recreation. Not fear of things that keep us from that which we love most, things we can control -- such as man's ability to harm man -- if we collectively use the wisdom we are blessed with. We need to awaken to our potential and spend every moment investing in the future we dream of.

For example, what's the difference between $1 billion spent to safeguard Middle East fossil fuel supplies and $1 billion invested in sustainable, renewable energy jobs?

- Dead soldiers incapable of contributing to the well being of society
- Spouses or lovers who can only imagine what their lives together could've held
- Mothers and fathers left with only memories of their sons or daughters
- Sons and daughters left without a future full of love and nurturing from lost parents
- Maimed soldiers in mind, body or soul

Let's face it, you can train someone to kill, or you can train him to contribute to a peaceful world that is self-sustaining and that does not take a human toll, but rather allows the human spirit of ingenuity to thrive as the universal life force intended.

Multiply the hours and lives spent in the war model and you can see how -- in today's world of scientific and technological advances -- that such an outmoded paradigm is indeed a society's, a human species' suicide on a grand scale.

Read: "Endless War: The Suicide of the United States"