Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT) voted against the Bush Administration’s $700 bailout because it lacked accountability.  He just voted against the Obama Administration’s nominee for Treasury, Tim Geitner, because he helped create our current problem.

Sanders is a true independent who votes his conscious and he is supporting Obama’s stimulus package.  He explained why today on Democracy Now!:

It provides “a huge investment in infrastructure. A huge investment in energy… A massive investment in education…. The stimulus package is a significant step forward for working and middle class families in America.”

There is no doubt that the Republicans are right to examine the bill for there are things wrong with it.  But they are not interested in fixing the bill or offering other ideas.  They simply like playing the opposition, as evidenced by their constant repetition of foolish distortions and calls for tax cuts.

The Democrats don’t look much better. They try to answer the Republicans questions and in the process lose sight of the big picture. Right now, the Senate Dems are packing the bill with pork. They should cut the fat, come clean and talk directly to America about what is essential in the bill.

We need a grown up discussion of how best to fix the economy and build a 21st century country. But all we get is blather about ‘unleashing’ the economy and whether or not the CBO offerered a report. Senator Sander’s focus on the benefits to middle and working class Americans is most welcome.

I don’t think so.  Check out this bit of fun that tries to point out just how tired these new ideas sound.

The music is from Balkan Beat Box.

Developing nations continue to be the locus of most conflicts around the global and, as the 2007 numbers recently published by the Center for Defense Information make clear, the United States continues to arm the world.

Global arms sales totaled nearly $60 billion in 2007, an increase of 9.2 percent from 2006 values. The United States was again the world’s most dominant arms exporter, making $24.8 billion (41.5 percent) of all global arms agreements.

The developing world accounted for 70.5 percent of new arms transfer agreements in 2007. The United States was the largest arms trading partner with the developing world with new arms agreements in 2007 (28.8 percent of all agreements with the developing world).

And the countries buying the most arms?

• Saudi Arabia – the largest exporter and funder of Sunni Extremists
• India and Pakistan – nuclear armed enemies with numerous disputed regions
• Venezuela  – President Chavez continues to antagonize the US and agitate the region

Other interesting 2007 developments in the arms industry?  Russia continues to push into new markets across Africa, the Middle East and South East Asia.  Not to be outdone, the US is expanding sales to countries traditionally left off the distribution list.

Is there any wonder why resource wars continue to flare up and civil wars drag on for so long? Shouldn’t the simple connection between those selling the weapons and those fighting the wars draw more attention?  Who is the last media professional you heard question how the US can be both a human rights leader and the world’s largest arms dealer?

The arms industry continues to grow with hardly a comment from our free and independent media.  We need to admit that arming the world will make it impossible to stop terrorism.  Our best hope for peace and real prosperity is to invest in the systems that give information to people, instead of firearms to governments.

John Bolton and John Yoo are at it back – but this time they are on the side of the constitution. For the last eight years, these  two said the Executive Branch could do anything it wanted – but no more. Their man is almost out, and now they say the Senate must exert its power.  Of course, they are right that  the Senate should uphold is power – no matter who is President – but these two speak with forked tongues and should not be taken a face value.

Like the wackiest of religious zealots who pick and choose select parts of religious texts, Yoo and Bolton select the parts of constitutional law that fit their momentary needs. They are not concerned with the long term health of the nation or our government but rather the temporal ends of the greedy fools who pay them.

The snake oil can be seen in their argument – the president should not be able to make or join an international treaty without 2/3 of vote in the senate (a president evidently is completely free to break treaties without even consulting the senate) but a simple majority vote would pose a serious challenge to American law and order.

This seems like a strong, clear statements until they admit that this has already been done for our numerous economic treaties. But they don’t have a problem with those, only treaties that will have impact on:

Significant national-security commitments, or that purport to delegate lawmaking and enforcement functions to international organizations

Not only does this picking and choosing muddy their clear principles, but economic treaties such as NAFTA delegate a great deal of law making and enforcement functions to international agencies. So why aren’t Yoo and Bolton upset about them? Perhaps because they don’t mind treaties that put more power in the hands of their corporate pay masters?

This makes me suspect that this entire argument is meant to keep the people of the US from expressing our desire to address climate change, poverty and war. Yoo and Bolton are fine with corporations have more international authority but want to ensure that no international organization has a say in how much we pollute or who we bomb.

I would have more respect for them if they have the guts to come out in favor the oil and weapons companies that they work for. It is shame that these two people, who have done so much harm to our nation, continue to enjoy such high profile access to our nation’s media. They might have changed tactics but not paymasters or perspectives.  They can not be trusted.

TSN! is glad to see democracy at work in America.  For years a few, closed-minded individuals have dominated the public debate about immigration.  Of course, strong voices such as Rep. Shelia Lee Jackson Lee have long stood up for the rights of those who come here to improve their lives and our country.

But the media silence is usually cracked by voices of intolerance and prejudice.  The overwhelming American response yesterday is a clear indication of one of the things that makes this country great – the open arms of liberty offering refuge and hopes to those willing to come and work for it

The primary campaign: it’s interesting that they call it a race. Is it a race to the finish? A slow and steady wins the race? A drag race starring Vin Diesel (god knows, he’d totally Rambo Iraq)? Actually, in 2008 it’s a race only because it’s about race.

In this year’s Democratic Primary, there’s no race to the finish, no sprinting for delegates. There’s clearly no victor at the end. Instead this year’s primary is a little piece of po-mo, political theater: a theatrical performance of a Cornell West book, a living Sarah Lawrence class, a critical revision of Jean Genet’s “the Blacks.”
Barack Obama’s speech last week, his speech on race–a carefully calculated piece of political rhetoric designed to win the race–has been compared to Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I have a dream.” It’s been called an historic moment in our nation’s absymal relation the other, our absurd failure to recognize and accept racial difference. Obama’s speech is indeed all that. Brilliant as it was eloquent. Sharply critical as it was accepting. As historic as the pundits put. But it’s worth to the annals is not simply because of the incisive, laser-sharp light it fixes on race in America, but because it reveals the great progress made towards racial acceptance in America; and by its inherent juxtaposition with the other historic element of this race–our abysmal relation to that other other, gender and sexual difference–it showcases the lack of progress made in granting equal rights for women.

Watching Obama’s speech, two thoughts popped. One, could Hillary Clinton have made a similar speech about gender? Two, could Obama have expanded his speech to include all otherness, whether it be cultural, racial, religious, gender, or sexuality? The answer to both is no.

Certainly, Hillary’s ability to make the grand speech is far less than Obama’s, a man who is perhaps the most powerful political voice of our time. However, if we touched her with some sort of magic wand and gave her, well, the magic Obama possesses at the podium, she still could not have brought gender into the debate. While race is an economic oppression, Gender is a institutional oppression. The later is much harder to change, or question.

In our society–women–the majority, are institutionally coded as mothers, wives, or potential mothers and wives. Part of this is a function of biology, part a function of man’s history (man!). Whether today we allow women to “have it all,” to be the mother and the career woman, them having the strength and leadership of a man in the nuclear family is antithetical to the foundation of our society. Placing women at the helm of that unit, turns the nuclear family construct on its head. It makes women not the giver of economic power, through their ability to grow new members of our society but places them as the progenitor and generator of economic value. Just look at the thought of Bill Clinton as First Lady, or his presence on the trail. The man simply could not wear a pant-suit or a Washinton-wives’ blue skirt. He doesn’t have the legs, or the boobs–no matter how fond he is of both.
On the other hand, our treatment of race is a systematic economic oppression of the minority, first through enslavement, and later through the varied effects of that enslavement. Racism in this sense is less endemic and therefore easier to reverse over time. As this economic oppression becomes consequence and not institutional, over time the minority will gain the economic power of the majority. Biological difference, and the thousands of years of oppression it has created, is a bit harder to change. It requires a lot of hormones., the addition of an Adam’s Apple and a fondness of beer, baseball, belching and blow jobs from bitches. Like I said, a bit harder to change.
As to why Obama could not have addressed all difference in his speech, isn’t that obvious? What does he gain politically from making such a pronouncement? Could he have said that to be a woman running for president in America is more historic than being a man of mixed-race? No. After all, it’s a race, isn’t it?

Like a high school experiment, Iran’s elections demonstrate a known axiom - controlling who can run in an election determines who will win. The religious conservatives victory means that Iran will not change its stance to US anytime soon. They will remain highly skeptical and will likely continue to stoke the rhetorical fire between our nations.

The burden is on the United States to show that it is the wiser, more astute and ultimately more powerful nation but leading the way to peace. As Henry Kissinger just recently said, “if Iran is a nation and wants to be respected as a nation we will and must find a way to coexist with it.” We need leaders with the vision to see how a good relations with Iran could transform the political and economic outlook of the region.

If the US truly wants to bring our soldiers home with honor and success, befriending Iran is the quickest and most effective approach. But the US may not have any more success electing forward thinking leaders than Iran.

The Navy Times reports that voice heard on the radio during the last week’s encounter between US warships and Iranian patrol boats could have come from a third party. There has long been a radio prankster in the Gulf who threatens passing ships with destruction.

Given the lack of engine noise or wind on the tape, the Navy is right to cast doubt on its origin. The AP also revealed that this is not the first encounter between Iranian patrol boats and US warships. Last December a US ship fired a warning shot to make the patrol boats back off.

The previous incidents went unreported but the simultaneous reception of the “Filipino Monkey” radio message (name given to the prankster) and President Bush’s imminent trip to the Middle East heightened the attention on this incident.The Navy’s concern in the moment is understanding and again I applaud their restraint. Too bad the Administration did not exercise similar caution before publicly blaming Iran for threats it may not have made. Iran is foolish to send patrol boats skimming past our ships, but we don’t need to compound that foolishness with false accusations.

Our aggressive stance on Iran is not playing well with the rest of the world and actions like these make it worse. This incident is too reminiscent of the distortions that lead up to the Iraq war. This Administration has already missed two chances to make peace with Iran and end its nuclear program. They seem to prefer confrontation over peace.

The country better wake up and make the President stand down before we find ourselves in a war more bloody then the Afghanistan and Iraq combined.

Once again the US seems to push for war in the face of the facts. The American people need the media to stand up and ask obvious questions about the Iran and the best way to stop them.

And once again, Rep. Joe Sestak is one politician who continues to speak sensibly about the challenges facing us in the region and he manages to suggest positive steps towards solutions without stooping to partisan attacks.

TSN! applauds Rep. Sestak and hopes that more politicians and pundits take a lesson from his reasoned approach and attitude. While the US pushes for more sanctions, Rep. Sestak seeks a more constructive, peaceful and ultimately profitable solution.

Iran as an ally or at least a strategic partner makes the region much safer and will cost our nation much less. It is also likely to be the best path keeping them from developing nuclear weapons. With China buying more oil from Iran, will sanctions work at all? Can we start a fight with a country supplying that much oil to our largest creditor?

It is time to rethink our approach to Iran and we need the media’s help. We must laugh off the squealing about weakness and realize that true strength begins with intelligence.

The Democrats have a great opportunity to stand tall and lead the country with a clear vision of a bright future. And it starts with refusing to drop the renewable provisions from the new energy bill. The issue is too important to our economy, our security and our future.

This energy bill is the first step in building the next economy, we can’t afford to wait any longer. We either start investing in the new tools needed to build the our further, or we trust the old payoffs to keep working. We trust the big oil companies to keep finding new sources of oil and us to find ways to pay for it.
Democrats must to fight to save both the increased CAFÉ standards and the renewable electricity standards. For how can any of them run on the environment and renewable energy if they let this drift by with a large public struggle? This is about a commitment to leadership and the time to act is now:

1. The industry will productively use the help
2. The country is ready for the idea
3. This is the last energy bill before the election

Read the rest of this entry »