The Most Important Blog... Ever

This Blog Has Moved

2007-06-05T10:18:00.000-07:00

Click here to visit the new and improved Most Important Blog... Ever -- now even more important!

The NBA Sucks HARD

2007-05-01T21:39:00.000-07:00

I just finished watching one of the most obvious conspiracies in the history of professional sports on full display, as the Dallas Mavericks somehow came back from a 9 point deficit with 3 minutes left to defeat the Golden State Warriors, final score 118-112.

I watched the game with Bob, a big-time Mavs fan, who was wearing his Mavs cap and 2006 NBA Western Conference Champion Mavs T-Shirt in desperation, since his team needed to win to avoid one of the biggest upsets in basketball history. The referees failed to call a foul on any of the Mavs at any point after 5 minutes were left in the game. They didn't call an obvious foul on a 3-point shot attempt when Mavs star Dirk Nowitzky slapped the hand of a Warriors player. The shot would have given Golden State a 2 point lead with about a minute left. Instead, the refs called a phantom foul on the Warriors best player, Baron Davis. The inexplicable foul call knocked Davis out of the game when the difference was 1 point and less than a minute remained on the clock.

In Bob's estimation, the Warriors "got jobbed."

So, what else is new? The NBA has been jobbing teams all year. They extend playoff series to seven games whenever possible, by any means necessary to keep the ticket sales rolling in. The officiating in the NBA is terrible, as I've said before, and it's bad for the sport, bad for the fans, and most of all it's bad for America.

And to pour even more fuel on the burning embers that are all that remains of the NBA's credibility, according to a new study out of Cornell and the University of Pennsylvania, the officiating isn't just conspiratory, it's also racist. Screw this league.

Oh, by the way, Go Pistons!

Bush Meets Definition Of Insanity

2007-05-01T17:02:00.000-07:00

Four years ago today, on May 1, 2003, President Bush stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier under the "Mission Accomplished" banner.

After landing aboard a military jet dressed in a pilot's jumpsuit, Bush declared "major combat operations have ended." This speech did nothing to support our troops, and today Bush looks like a fool for pulling this stunt.

Today, May 1, 2007, Bush is essentially repeating the same action and expecting different results.

He vetoed funding for the troops and declared that the war will be over when he can declare "mission accomplished." This veto did nothing to support our troops, and today Bush looks like a fool for pulling this stunt.

By this time four years from now, Bush will look even more foolish today in 2007 as he did on that aircraft carrier in 2002. It's beyond overdue for American troops to withdraw from Iraq, and the President is wrong to veto this bill.

Clinton's Gaffe, Obama's Passion, and Edwards' Speech Steals the Show

2007-04-30T16:46:00.000-07:00

The biggest highlights from the 2007 California Democratic Party Convention, of course, were the speeches from the most exciting slate of presidential candidates in the history of the party. Here's what sticks out in my memory, one day after the convention wrapped. Stick with me through to the end for the moment you've been waiting for - the Erik Love 2008 Endorsement for one of the candidates!

Senator Clinton had enormous support from the dais. I remember joking about "subliminal messages to vote for Hillary" as Art Torres opened the convention's first general session by saying "God has a new voice, and it's a woman!" Torres and other party officials mentioned their support for Clinton in passing, almost as if it's no longer even worth mentioning since it's so obvious who we should vote for. And most of all, Clinton's position on the agenda was very friendly - she spoke first and no other candidate spoke in her time slot. I overheard later in the day that Clinton was allowed to schedule a "meet Hillary" session with delegates during Barack Obama's speech in the early afternoon, ensuring that Hillary supporters wouldn't get wooed by the charismatic challenger to Clinton dominance.

Perhaps all the support from the party elite is helping to distract from the fact that Hillary Clinton made a huge gaffe in her speech, on the issue of immigration. Everyone I talked to said that they thought Clinton's speech was strong, and it's true that she went out of her way to decry the Iraq war (without apologizing for her pro-war vote). She told a few good stories about her childhood. She came off as strong on universal health care and she sounded very tough on terrorism. In fact, I think I picked up on part of her campaign's general strategy of the moment, the "tough stance on everything" plan. And that's where her gaffe on immigration came in. She said that the federal government should register and keep track of all immigrants (documented and otherwise) because immigration is a "national security issue." In other words, if you want an even stronger PATRIOT Act and a bigger FBI and Homeland Security department, vote for Hillary Clinton. It seems to me that immigration is not at all a national security issue - it's a human rights issue. No undocumented immigrant has ever committed an act of terrorism in the United States. The vast majority of terror attacks - Oklahoma City, the Unabomber, the Atlanta Olympics, and the many bombings at family planning clinics - were all perpetrated by home-grown Americans. 9/11 was carried out by people who were registered with the federal government. Clinton's remark at the convention about tracking all immigrants met with deafening silence. She honestly sounded like a member of the Minutemen, and I was stunned along with the rest of the delegates. Her stance on immigration (which doesn't appear anywhere on her website, by the way) is even harder to understand since she said just last month that "taking a harsh position is not going to solve the problem [of immigration reform]" ("Mrs. Clinton Says G.O.P.'s Immigration Plan is at Odds With the Bible," NY Times, March 23, 2006).

As for the lesser candidates, Obama's great speech got the most cheers, but it was John Edwards who stole the show.

Edwards came clean about his mistaken vote and early support for the Iraq war, and then he went off the charts on the progressive scale. He talked about the labor movement and the need to protect worker's rights. He spoke of the long overdue drive toward universal health care, reminding us that if other candidates don't get specific on how to pay for their plan, then they don't have a plan. Edwards offered his plan, gave it's estimated price tag ($90-120 billion), and he said that he'd pay for it by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Edwards took us to our progressive roots, saying that if we don't stand up for the 37 million Americans who wake up every day, worried about how they will feed their families, then why do we even exist as a Democratic Party? He spoke of the need for a living wage for all Americans. He said that all Americans need access to college. And, on the anniversary of the violence in Los Angeles, he stated the obvious (but too often ignored) fact that race still matters in America: if you're black you're more likely to be poor or in jail. We've got to do something - and Edwards gave specifics and, wow, did he do it eloquently. "The time is over for poll driven politics," he declared, and said that on his first day in office Guantanamo Bay would be closed. He said that thousands of children in Africa die because their parents can't afford a $4 vaccine, and then he made me cry when he chided me for spending $4 on my cup of coffee. Edwards promised to restore America's image in the world by standing up once again for human rights and against genocide. What does America look like when we declare that a genocide is going on and then we do nothing? What does America look like when hundreds of people in one of our own major cities drown? Edwards hit all the right notes, and he now has this progressive blogger's vote in the primary.

Let's think strategically here. Looking at the Republicans, they're already on the defensive and at this point it doesn't look like any of them has a good chance at getting enough electoral votes. The apparent front-runner is a New Englander running on his (shaky) "hero" biography. The former man to beat is a legitimate war hero who has legitimately made about a half-dozen crippling campaign mistakes already. The 2008 campaign is the Democrats' to lose.

This Republican weakness means that we've got a real chance to swing the presidency to the Democratic base, if we can just get past the establishment support for Clinton and put a real Democrat up. There's no reason to "play to the middle" this time (and it's not like that strategy works, anyway). The Republicans are too weak to get past someone with progressive bona fides and a real chance to win 250 electoral votes like John Edwards. That's why I'm joining One Corps today, and I'll see you at a John Edwards event in Santa Barbara sometime very soon.

UPDATE: Here's a link to mp3 audio of the Edwards speech.

From The Courage Campaign

Workplace Safety in America

2007-04-24T22:43:00.000-07:00

By Erik Love

One of the greatest accomplishments of the American right wing has been the demonization of labor unions. Reagan's revolution has been so effective that even many people who are otherwise progressive can often be heard discussing the obsolescence of unions. "They were important at one time," the story goes, but today unions are part of the problem instead of part of the solution. A number of myths are cited as evidence for the idea that unions are no longer needed, including the popular notion that the primary purpose of unions (clearing up dangerous working conditions) has already been served now that we've got strong worker protections written into law.

This myth - that employers simply can no longer get away with unsafe working conditions - is laughable, especially if you've taken a look at the exposé on the lack of workplace safety in the New York Times right now. The idea that workplace safety is well-regulated by an impartial government hinges on the effectiveness of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Since OSHA's inception in 1970, its track record in providing rigorous oversight of private industry to ensure the constant protection of workers has been spotty at best.

The establishment of OSHA (and the advent of workers' compensation laws among other protections) was an important victory for the labor movement, to be sure, but with openly pro-business and anti-labor administrations from Reagan and the Bushes, the agency has been far from impartial in enforcing safety regulations. Without unbiased arbitration, workers remain all too susceptible to careless or unscrupulous employers.

According to the New York Times piece, under George W. Bush, OSHA has been greatly and intentionally weakened. Bush's OSHA has "issued the fewest significant standards in its history." For example, even though OSHA research noted that silica dust causes lung cancer, the Bush Administration has not put any new requirements in place to ensure that workers aren't exposed to the harmful chemical. Rather than set standards to take the most safety-conscious route in regulating silica dust and other dangerous chemicals like diacetyl (a food additive), the director of OSHA has insisted that "the science is murky" on whether these chemicals actually cause disease. Since no standards have been put in place by OSHA, companies are able to use their own judgment as to how they should protect their employees. The statistics show this isn't a good system for protecting workers - in California, the number of fatalities due to on-the-job exposure to harmful substances or environments increased from 35 in 2003 to 51 in 2005 (the latest figures available). The nationwide statistics don't look much better, they show significant increases in deaths due to exposure.

The best safety guarantee is a strong union. Then, there's no need to rely on "impartial" government oversight - a collectively bargained contract will require management to provide a safe working environment even if OSHA continues to fail to do its job.

From The Courage Campaign

Now, That's Hilarious

2007-04-20T13:20:00.000-07:00

After a very hard week, here are some sorely needed laughs.

NBC Is A Pathetic Joke

2007-04-19T10:07:00.000-07:00

This is the only newsworthy part of the photos aired yesterday by NBC. It's the little "give us credit for our scoop!" badge appended to each image sent by the Virginia Tech killer.

I honestly don't know what the executives at NBC were thinking when they decided to air photos and videos sent to them from the man who slaughtered 32 people on Monday morning. But I can make a few guesses.

"Our ratings will go through the roof!"

"Why focus on the families of the victims? If it bleeds, it leads at NBC!"

"How else can we possibly compete with American Idol?"

OK, whatever the reasons they have for airing parts of the killer's video yesterday, and then saving some new bits for this morning's Today show, they're not good enough. The videos are the worst kind of tabloid journalism, and they add nothing to the discussion except more grief and outrage.

The search for answers, "Why did this happen?" is important, and the desire to look at the message from this cold-hearted killer is understandable. But NBC did not have to milk their position at the center of this story in such an thoughtless, senseless way. They actually make CNN look classy by comparison.

Renewing The Call for Human Rights

2007-04-19T09:20:00.000-07:00

Last year, on May 1, millions of people across the nation stood up and marched in support of basic human rights, especially for migrant workers. In response to a ridiculous bill introduced by Congressman Sensenbrenner (R-WI) - a bill that would have required the deportation of any undocumented person in the US - Americans in cities large and small took part in demonstrations calling for human rights and dignity for all people. This movement quashed the idea of summarily "kicking out" people who come to the United States looking for work and a way to support their families, people who contribute to America in essential ways even while often facing exploitative employers.

This year, the impetus for another demonstration comes from President Bush, who has proposed that all people without papers in the US will have to deport themselves and pay more than $10,000 in order to have a chance at a new "Z Visa." This plan is perhaps even worse than the Sensenbrenner bill. In response to Bush's draconian and unrealistic proposal -- and in response to recently escalating Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) dragnets, which serve only to frighten and dehumanize - there are renewed calls for more May Day demonstrations this year.

The call is once again for a national boycott on May 1, 2007, which will serve as a reminder that our economy could not operate were it not for the work of immigrants. There will also be marches and speeches across the country. The message is simple: human rights are not optional. Everyone in the United States deserves basic dignity and a path to citizenship.

From The Courage Campaign

CNN is a joke

2007-04-16T20:00:00.000-07:00

It would have been nice to see the cable news channels clean up their acts a bit, maybe show a little class in their reporting on one of the most tragic stories they've ever reported. Instead, we heard CNN anchor Don Lemon say this to the students at Virginia Tech:

"Stay out of harm's way, but send us your pictures and video."

And then the endless parade of "experts" and the ominous on-screen graphics proclaiming "Deadliest Shooting." I just turned on MSNBC here, some 14 hours after the horrific rampage was over, to see "BREAKING NEWS: Shooter among 33 dead."

I guess I'm glad I wasn't watching a cable news channel when 9/11 happened, because if I had been, I might have started believing that Saddam Hussein was connected to Al Queda or something else completely false.

That's enough ranting for me. Read this very well-written article from Alessandra Stanley if you want a really good dressing-down of our nation's television news media.

Early Look at Term Limit Proposal

2007-04-12T10:19:00.001-07:00

In addition to giving California more clout in the Presidential race, the move of our presidential primary election to February 5, 2008 also will give us the opportunity to reform term limits for our state legislators. Let's take a moment to consider the new term limit proposal, which was just recently made official.

Term limits have been a controversial idea from the time they were first proposed in the early 90's, and today their novelty seems to be wearing off. The basic idea behind term limits, as I understand it, is to check corruption and allow for a more representative legislature by making room for legislators who are women and from underrepresented minorities. These reasons were enough to convince voters in several states across the country in the 90's, and term limits have been in place in 15 states, including, of course, California. California's term limits are among the most restrictive, allowing for just three two-year terms in the Assembly (six years of service total) and only two four-year terms in the state Senate (eight years of service). Across the country, term limits have become less popular in the last decade, with six states deciding to repeal or cancel their term limits provisions since 1997: Idaho, Massachusetts, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

Now, California is considering term limits reform as well. The promise of making the legislature more representative through term limits has not panned out nearly as well as expected. Several studies on term limits, including this one (pdf) from the Institute of Government at the University of Georgia, and this one (pdf) from the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers show that term limits have either a minimal or slightly negative effect on getting more legislators who are women and from underrepresented minorities into state legislatures.

Another unforeseen side-effect of term limits is also receiving attention lately: the decline of California's influence in Washington, DC. Karl Kurtz notes that term limits have meant a decline in the connections between lawmakers in Sacramento and lawmakers in DC. Why? Kurtz explains that "with six- and eight-year term limits in the state Assembly and Senate… the turnover of legislators means that members of Congress… soon lose touch with those in the state capitol." The lack of influence in DC translates into lower funding from Washington for critical California priorities like schools, infrastructure, disaster readiness, and anything else that requires funding.

So it's good news that a recent poll (pdf) on the term limits reform proposal show a majority of Californians are ready for a change. The proposal's wording, which was just made official this week, is good news for reform:

LIMITS ON LEGISLATORS' TERMS IN OFFICE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Reduces the total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years. Allows a person to serve a total of 12 years either in the Assembly, the Senate, or a combination of both.

The reform will keep term limits in place, but it will allow for more experienced legislators to stay in the Assembly. It should allow for better connections between Sacramento and DC, and the proposal should have nothing but a positive impact on making the legislature more representative of California's diverse population.

From the Courage Campaign

Californians Speak With One Voice On Immigration

2007-04-10T11:44:00.000-07:00

This weekend, Los Angeles was the site of the largest protest in the country since last year, as more than ten thousand people took to the streets to demand a humane and just immigration policy. The protesters denounced President Bush's newest immigration proposal, which would require undocumented workers to leave the country, pay more than $10,000 in fines and fees, just to get a chance at becoming documented workers. "I don't know why they don't want to give us papers, when we are working and trying to be good citizens," said Carlos Gonzales, LA resident, to the Times. The protest is set to expand in the coming weeks, as activists gear up for May Day 2007 with calls for another general boycott to demand human rights and to highlight the positive impact that migrant workers have on our state.

And today, California's voice on immigration gets even louder as the Field Research Corporation released the results of a new poll indicating that wide majorities of Californians favor human rights for immigrants. The bilingual telephone survey of 570 registered voters across the state shows that 83% of California voters want a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. The full report (pdf) indicates that there's growing opposition to Bush's Wall along the border with Mexico, with nearly 60% opposed to its construction. Also important to note is that only registered Republicans (68%) consider undocumented immigration to be a serious problem, with only 35% of non-partisan voters and just 40% of registered Democrats calling the problem "very serious." In other words, only dedicated conservative Republicans appear to think that there's a "crisis" in immigration, while the majority feels that this is a less serious problem that can be solved by simply giving undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship while enforcing strict penalties on exploitative employers and effectively patrolling the border.

California continues to lead the way on immigration. Despite the reactionary opinions of a few right-wing radicals like the Minutemen, most Californians realize that the "problem" with undocumented workers is that it's unfair and inhumane to ask them to live and work in the US without papers. The current system allows for terrible human rights abuses that makes the lives of too many people close to slavery. The political trade winds from California are clearly blowing in the direction of progressive reform for immigrants to our nation of immigrants.

From the Courage Campaign

Strange Story Of The Day

2007-04-08T13:21:00.000-07:00

The President of Ford Motor Company just stopped the President of the United States from blowing himself up.

Apparently, during a demonstration of a plug-in hydrogen car last week, President Bush was about to plug an electrical cord into the hydrogen tank. So, Alan Mulally (the President of Ford) sprang into action. From the Detroit News:

"I just thought, 'Oh my goodness!' So, I started walking faster... I violated all the protocols. I touched the President. I grabbed his arm and I moved him...."

And then, right after he saved the President's life, Dick Cheney shot Mr. Mulally in the face.

How It's Done

2007-04-07T20:56:00.000-07:00

Unlike teams from that pathetic "university" in Columbus, when Michigan teams make it to the championship game, you'd best believe they'll come home with the hardware.

Go STATE!

Why We Need The EFCA

2007-04-02T13:32:00.000-07:00

Melinda Burns, the longtime Santa Barbara News-Press reporter who was fired last year because she helped organize a union in her newsroom, has an important op-ed in today's LA Times. She describes how the brazen, flagrant union-busting activities from Wendy McCaw, the owner of the venerable central coast newspaper, could have been avoided if the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) were already law:

"Believing that a union contract was the best way to protect our jobs and restore integrity to the paper, most journalists signed cards to join the Teamsters in July. We asked McCaw to recognize our union based on those cards, a step encouraged by the labor relations board, but she refused.... Under the Bush administration, the labor relations board has rarely sought injunctions ordering employers to immediately reinstate workers who were fired for organizing. The Employee Free Choice Act would require the board to do so.... Those of us who were fired don't know how long we can hold out in Santa Barbara, one of the most expensive cities in America. I'm putting my house up for rent. Others are borrowing money to pay their bills. You can lose a lot of sleep when you lose your job, and we're a pretty exhausted bunch. That's what McCaw is counting on."

Last month, when the House passed EFCA, I noted that we need a surge of progressive activism to make sure that this important bill clears the Senate. Let's take action today to make sure our Senators are on board.

From the Courage Campaign

Go Tigers

2007-04-02T12:58:00.000-07:00

It's Opening Day in Detroit. Go get 'em, Tigers!

California To D.C.: Hi, Remember Us?

2007-03-28T11:08:00.000-07:00

by Erik Love

A huge delegation of Los Angeles regional leaders are in Washington, D.C. to remind the federal government that the nation's second-largest city and first-largest economic engine is here in California.

Maybe the huge distance between LA and D.C. helps to explain why California gets less federal support than it needs. When I call my family, back in the Eastern Time Zone, I often have to remind myself that I'm calling three hours into the future. Three time zones is a long, long way away. Thousands of miles. There are two mountain ranges between us and D.C.. Whatever the reason, it's high time that California receive the attention that it deserves as our nation's biggest economic contributor.

"We are the ATM machine for the United States, and we're coming here to get refilled," said the Chairman of the LA Chamber of Commerce, David W. Fleming. He was one of 200 California leaders on Capitol Hill yesterday. Talk about an ATM Watch -- these California leaders mean business.

What would California do with additional support from Washington? Well, fund No Child Left Behind, for one. We could upgrade our transportation grid. Fix the levees protecting the central valleys. Provide better port infrastructure and security in LA and Long Beach, where some 43% of America's imported goods arrive.

Mayor Villaraigosa reminded Congress that were California it's own country, it would have the world's seventh-largest economy. "We want our fair share. California has been an ATM for far too long," the mayor insisted. Announcing that the California delegation - which is expected to grow from its current 200 members -- would visit D.C. each year, the mayor intoned, "We are a force to be reckoned with."

Seriously, if Republicans in Congress could find funding for The Bridge to Nowhere in 2005, surely now that responsible leadership has returned to Washington, there must be some room in the federal budget to support California. What could be going on that's taking so much of the federal budget?

Oh. Right.

From the Courage Campaign

The Democrats Grow A Backbone

2007-03-24T10:09:00.000-07:00

This post is dedicated to my friends on the Left who believe that "there's no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans."

The Democratic Party took control of the House of Representatives on January 3, 2007, exactly 80 days ago. In that two-and-a-half months, the Democrats have:

Passed a bill to withdraw American troops from Iraq
Voted to subpoena Karl Rove and other top White House officials
Passed a bill to provide federal funding for stem-cell research
Passed a bill to cut student loan interest rates in half
Passed a bill to end large tax breaks for oil companies

In March 2005, at the start of the 109th Congress, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives was voting on the Terri Schiavo issue.

All the talk of "non-binding resolutions" and "Democrats need to stand up for what they believe in" is so 2006. The Democratic Party has given a voice to the strong majority of Americans who believe in ending the Iraq war and in providing quality health care and education for everyone.

Oh, and we're just getting started. As the successes of the 110th Congress continue, be sure you thank everyone who voted for a Democrat in 2006.

Soon They'll Pay You To Buy A House In Detroit

2007-03-22T11:24:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: This guy isn't helping. Way to go, dummy.

As an expatriate myself, I can tell you that there's a growing Detroit diaspora all over the country. I went to a Pistons game in Los Angeles not long ago, and there were almost as many Pistons fans as Clippers fans at the Staples Center.

So, Michigan stands to lose a seat in Congress next year as the state's population plummets, and houses are literally cheaper than cars in the Motor City.

Looks like I could own my very own 4-bedroom house in Detroit for what I pay in 6 months' rent here in Santa Barbara. I'll be moving back as soon as I can, folks.

Many thanks to Arlene for the tip on the news about home prices being cheaper than car prices back home.

Why Attorneygate Matters

2007-03-20T10:22:00.000-07:00

United States Attorney. It doesn't quite have the ring of "US Marshall" or "FBI Agent," but United States Attorneys are action heroes in their own right.

US Attorneys, people like Patrick J. Fitzgerald, do important work that includes ferreting out government corruption, bringing CEO's to justice, and they prosecute violent crime when it's heinous enough to land in federal court. Indeed, Mr. Fitzgerald just completed a successful investigation and prosecution of a White House official - Scooter Libby. Fitzgerald and his office worked meticulously and professionally and found that Mr. Libby lied under oath about the unveiling of a covert CIA agent's name.

We in California were particularly grateful for the work of former US Attorney Carol Lam, who served the southern district of our state. Ms. Lam brought Randy "Duke" Cunningham to justice after he accepted bribes and sold out the people he was elected to represent. Lam was working on another corruption case, involving Republican Congressman Jerry Lewis, when she was abruptly fired by the Bush Administration.

Ms. Lam and six other US Attorneys were dismissed in December. This is historically unprecedented. Typically, US Attorneys are appointed by the President and they are expected to remain on the job for a four-year term. When Presidents are reelected, as President Bush was, usually almost all of the US Attorneys from the first term stay on for a second term. That's what Ms. Lam expected, but instead she was dismissed. Why?

The answer to that question is at the heart of the controversy swirling in Washington right now. Why would a US Attorney who had successfully found corruption in the offices of several prominent Republicans suddenly get fired? Democrats in Congress started asking questions, and what they have found is a swamp of misleading statements given under oath and other damning evidence of arrogance and mismanagement at the highest levels of the Bush Administration.

The reason we should care about this controversy is that it's a terrifying example of what can happen when a President gets too much power. Evidence shows that the White House - Bush's closest advisors - hatched the plan to summarily fire US Attorneys way back in 2005 (when Bush was talking about spending political capital). The White House, specifically Karl Rove, initially wanted to fire all US Attorneys, but then they decided on a shorter list of potential targets that included Patrick Fitzgerald and Carol Lam.

The reason it took them until December 2006 to finish the job was concern over political fallout for this unprecedented move.

In order to do their jobs - to work as justice officials - US Attorneys need to feel that they are independent and free to investigate any crime that occurs in their district, even if that crime involves elected Republican Party officials. By firing attorneys for political reasons, Bush and his team of mismanagers has destroyed that presumption of independence. Rove and his facilitators in the Justice Department have done irreparable violence to our system of justice.

On top of that, administration officials appear to have intentionally misled Congress about the firing of the attorneys - so it looks like more perjury investigations are in order. Hmm. I wonder who will lead the perjury investigation.

Is there a US Attorney in the house?

From The Courage Campaign

YES

2007-03-17T12:50:00.000-07:00

Worst President Ever

2007-03-16T16:38:00.000-07:00

Here's a good old-fashioned rant for you.

It was scandal after scandal after scandal this week for the most mismanaged White House in living memory.

The conditions at Walter Reed show that the White House is ignoring the welfare of our wounded veterans.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales worked with Karl Rove to force out US attorneys who refused to do the White House's bidding.

Former CIA covert agent Valerie Plame testified today that the White House intentionally sabotaged her career to exact vengeance on her husband because he presented evidence that Iraq had no nuclear WMD and posed no danger to the United States. Oh, and the House Oversight Committee heard today that the White House never investigated the leak despite Bush promising to "get to the bottom" of the scandal. A lie on top of a lie.

And, to top it all off with the biggest scandal of them all: this weekend is the 4th anniversary of Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

Over and over again, the Bush White House is proving that it cannot govern. Even The Trump agrees: Bush is the worst president... ever.

So, was it coincidence that transcripts from the interrogation of Khalid Shaikh Muhammed, the alleged mastermind of 9/11, were released this week? I think not. According to a brilliant piece by Rosa Brooks, this was yet another attempt by the White House to distract from its historic shortcomings. It didn't work.

Total Recall UPDATE: Education

2007-03-16T16:36:00.000-07:00

Our "post-partisan" Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, today retreated behind Republican talking points. The governor reacted to a series of new studies that show our state's schools are drastically underfunded by saying that "no amount of money will improve our schools without needed education reform."

But the series of extensive studies -- sponsored in part by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation -- published this week directly contradict that old Republican saw about school "reform" instead of "throwing money" at the problem. The studies prove the "post-partisan" idea that both reform and additional funding are sorely needed to bring our schools out of 48th place in the nation.

Since the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, California has lagged far behind the rest of the nation in preparing our children for the global economy. Because of the restrictions imposed by Prop 13, even though we are the wealthiest state with the biggest economy, somehow our schools are strapped for cash. This chart shows just how far our schools have fallen since Prop 13.

Rather than exhibit bold, "post-partisan" leadership by embracing the results of the non-partisan education report, Schwarzenegger is hauling out old lines about the need for reform trumping the need for cash.

But the new studies prove what educators have been saying for a long time: reforms are indeed needed, but they'll cost money. Both reforms and an infusion of additional funding are desperately needed if we're going to properly invest in our children. But our governor is failing to live up to his promises to fix our schools.

From The Courage Campaign

"Close to Slavery"

2007-03-14T12:25:00.000-07:00

"Close to Slavery." That's the title of a new report on guestworker programs in the United States. As President Bush and his Republican allies in Congress get set to push through an expansion of the guestworker program, this report comes at a critical time.

The report, produced by the Southern Poverty Law Center, shows that guestworkers are hardly treated as guests. From the report:

Rather, they are systematically exploited and abused. Unlike U.S. citizens, guestworkers do not enjoy the most fundamental protection of a competitive labor market - the ability to change jobs if they are mistreated. Instead, they are bound to the employers who "import" them. If guestworkers complain about abuses, they face deportation, blacklisting or other retaliation....
Bound to a single employer and without access to legal resources, guestworkers are:
* routinely cheated out of wages;
* forced to mortgage their futures to obtain low-wage, temporary jobs;
* held virtually captive by employers or labor brokers who seize their documents;
* forced to live in squalid conditions; and,
* denied medical benefits for on-the-job injuries.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel recently put it this way: "This guestworker program's the closest thing I've ever seen to slavery."

The report was highlighted by Bob Herbert, but other than that this harrowing news has not garnered much attention. It's imperative that progressives stand up for the basic rights of immigrants and demand effective reforms to guarantee that no matter what, we will not stand for conditions of slavery or indentured servitude in America.

From The Courage Campaign

Total Recall: The Courage Campaign Governor Watch - Education

2007-03-12T15:05:00.000-07:00

Total Recall, a blog series here at the Courage Campaign, examines a simple question. How well has the governor kept his word and delivered on his promises? As Mr. Schwarzenegger continues his first full term as governor, rest assured that we're watching Arnold like a time-traveler. As news events warrant, we'll have a new installment here on the blog, looking at how Arnold's performance while governing lives up to his promises.

This installment of Total Recall focuses on education. Previous installments looked at health care and the prison crisis. Check back for posts on the environment, electoral reform, immigration, and more in the coming weeks.

Let's start by recalling Governor Schwarzenegger's promises on education, and then we'll see how his actions so far have lived up to those promises. To end on a hopeful note, we'll conclude by looking at prospects for change in the future.

Recalling Arnold's Promises

Schwarzenegger won the recall election in 2005 with conflicting promises. He said that he wouldn't cut funding for eduction, but he also vowed never to raise taxes. Eventually, one of these promises had to be broken, and the governor decided that taxes were a higher priority than education. To keep that "no new taxes" promise, the governor has had to defy constitutional requirements for education, and the end result has been inconsistent and often inadequate funding for our schools.

What Arnold Has Done on Education

Everyone agrees that California's public school system was once the envy of the entire world. Now, our schools are an embarrassment. California's schools were blooming in the 1950's and 60's, when school funding kept pace with the rest of the nation. Since the passage of Proposition 13 in the late 1970's, California's public schools have seen their funding stagnate. The result has been crumbling school buildings, overcrowded classrooms, outdated textbooks, and plummeting academic performance. Overall, California ranks 48th out of the 50 states in terms of basic reading and math skills. The schools in California -- the wealthiest state -- are on par with those in Arkansas and Alabama. A major 2005 study from RAND showed how much of a crisis our schools face, and how they are failing to prepare our youth for a globalized world.

Governor Schwarzenegger campaigned on a promise to help our state's schools. But, rather than fulfill that promise, in his first budget back in 2004, Schwarzenegger proposed a $2 billion decrease for K-12 education. To make that massive cut, the governor made an unprecedented deal with the state teachers' union -- the "compact" -- in which Schwarzenegger promised to restore funding after the budget crisis resolved itself. At the time, analysts warned that the "compact" would set a dangerous precedent that makes the constitutional requirement to fully fund public education seem optional. The funding cuts also meant that some public schools started fundraising in order to provide services like school libraries and sports programs. This led some educators to decry the "privatization" of public schools.

To allay these fears, Governor Schwarzenegger pleaded that if the schools gave just this one 2-billion-dollar concession, then he'd make sure schools don't face severe cuts ever again.

Just a year later, in 2005, Schwarzenegger broke his promise. He proposed yet another decrease in school funding by withholding the money he promised in 2004. Schwarzenegger also promised not to raise community college fees more than 10% -- but then he flip-flopped and raised fees by 44%. This year, Schwarzenegger's budget includes even further increases to fees at our public universities.

In sum, Schwarzenegger has made keeping tax cuts for wealthy corporations a higher priority than education. The results are clear -- California's schools continue to falter just when our children need them most.

The Future: Prospects for Change
This week, Governor Schwarzenegger will begin a new effort to showcase California's career tech options. This comes on the heels of a major new study which shows that California's schools need both more money and internal reforms. The study aims to settle the debate between those who argue that you can't "throw money" into a broken school system, and those that argue that the schools are chronically underfunded. The report, due to be released this week, suggests that both sides are right and that, in any event, more funding is desperately needed for both school operations and in order to make effective reforms.

The governor, in short, must live up to his promises to restore California's education system. This will require bold leadership -- not flip-flopping and equivocating. The Governor will need to become more realistic with his "no new taxes" mantra, because new revenue streams must be found if we are to give our children the education they deserve.

Wikipedia Vandalism Hall of Fame

2007-03-06T11:08:00.000-08:00

Via Wonkette