Sarah Palin's Anti-American Allies

While the McCain-Palin campaign makes hay over Obama's tenuous association with William Ayers-- with the full cooperation of the mainstream media --one wonders why the Palin family's past association with the anti-American Alaska Independence Party (AIP) has received so little attention. David Talbot's recent article at Salon.com lays out the AIPs history in some detail, including founder Joe Vogler's pronouncement that “My government is my worst enemy. I’m going to fight them with any means at hand.”

Why is this important? Todd Palin was an active member of the AUP until 2002, and Sarah Palin has attended their conventions and made a video-linked appearance in 2008. If Ayers' past is grounds for criticizing Obama, the virulent anti-Americanism of Palin's AIP friends-- whom she has openly supported as recently as this spring --at least deserves our attention.

-DRL

Media Lapdogs Still Serve as McCain's "Base"

Many critics have been appalled by the mainstream media's enchantment with John McCain for years, but that hasn't prevented his putative "base" from continuing to apply a strict double standard to coverage of McCain over Obama. Even the recent (and mild) criticsms of the McCain campaigns lies and distortions have not changed the fact that his history remains largely off limits and even his currently erratic behavior draws little comment.

Media Matter's Jamison Foser's insightful piece "The media's enduring pro-McCain double standard" (posted 10/10/08) lays the issue out quite clearly. While the mainstream media may not really be McCain's base they have certainly treated him with undue deference and given him a pass on a range of issues that really should have been front-and-center for years.

-DRL

An Open Letter on Iraq: Six Years Later

The letter below was published in our campus newspaper on October 8, 2002. Written by my colleague Michael Livingston, it was signed by 125 other faculty including myself. While there was significant debate among the faculty over signing at the time (less than 50% chose to do so) I hope that today most of my colleagues would recognize the fact that Dr. Livingston's worst fears were proven accurate. The letter's conclusion still stands and is certainly applicable to other issues our country faces today: We urge you to join us in our shared responsibilities as citizens. Educate yourselves about the issue. Speak out. Act.

----------------------

An Open Letter to Students

By Michael G. Livingston

September 26, 2002

Published in The Record on October 8, 2002

We, the undersigned faculty at the College of St. Benedict and St. John’s University, oppose an invasion of Iraq by the United States.

A war is not a videogame or a Hollywood fantasy. Real people kill other real people. As citizens of a democracy we should not let our leaders decide this issue for us. We, the people, should collectively decide. We believe that the Bush administration’s reasons offered to date for going to war do not justify such a serious course of action. Our reasons for opposing an invasion include:

An invasion would lead to the loss of many innocent Iraqi lives. The first Persian Gulf War resulted in over 100,000 Iraqi deaths. Many more people have died, according to the United Nations and other sources, due to the 11-year-long embargo that was put in place immediately after the war. A new war will lead to even more people being killed. In the event of a ground war, the deaths will include Americans sent to fight for the wrong reasons.

The Iraqi threat is not real. The administration has presented little beyond repeated assertions to show that Iraq is indeed a threat to the United States. Senator Chuck Hagel (Republican, Nebraska) has stated that the CIA has “absolutely no evidence” that Iraq has or will soon have nuclear weapons. Further, Iraq has no delivery system capable of hitting the U.S. Finally, many nations such as India, Pakistan, Israel, and the United States itself have chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. No nation should be attacked merely for possessing such weapons.

An invasion to replace the Iraqi government would destabilize the region. An invasion will produce prolonged instability in Iraq, increase anti-American feelings in the region, and heighten the appeal of terrorist groups. An invasion will exacerbate tensions between Israelis and Palestinians, compounding the enormous suffering of both groups. An invasion of Iraq “could turn the whole region into a cauldron” as former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft has written.

An invasion would not address the root causes of terror. Most of the participants in the September 11^th attacks came from American allies such as Saudi Arabia. In such undemocratic regimes, idealistic young people do not have the option of expressing their grievances through the political process. They are thus vulnerable to manipulative, authoritarian groups such as al-Qaeda. A better response to terrorism would be to help our allies become more democratic and thus empower their own citizens to pursue social change constructively and peacefully.

An invasion would harm the U.S. economy. Wars are expensive and divert money, time, and people from the economy. An invasion could disrupt oil supplies, increase the deficit, and take much needed money away from domestic problems that we must face.

For these and other reasons we oppose going to war on moral and realistic grounds. We urge you to join us in our shared responsibilities as citizens. Educate yourselves about the issue. Speak out. Act.

[signed by 126 CSB/SJU faculty]

John McCain is not my friend

All the logical reasons for opposing McCain aside, I have become nearly ill from hearing him say "my friends" at every public appearance. He is not my friend and never will be. The fake familiarity is simply either condescending or a plain old dose of Elmer Gantry style snake oil.

PS: He bombed debate number two badly.

October Times Column: Recovery Plan is Needed-- Just Not for Banks

Economic recovery plan is needed

St. Cloud (MN) Times

October 1, 2008

[posted here a week late, so less relevant than it was on 10/10/08 before the bailout passed]

The spectacular collapse of the Bush administration’s $700 billion bailout plan Monday afternoon apparently took a lot of people by surprise. After all, we were told that the economy depended on it and that it was “too important” for partisan politics to derail.

By many accounts a major factor in the plan’s defeat was public opinion — the fact that “Main Street” just didn’t care to pay for the excesses of Wall Street and made that very clear to their representatives in Washington. Never mind that nobody really lives on Main Street; people outside the media know that’s for banks, jewelry stores and lawyers. Those of us who live on Maple Lane, Mulberry Road, or Minnesota Street still knew they were talking about us, just as we knew we had nothing to do with the toxic brew of lax regulation, shaky investments and unmitigated greed that got us into this mess.

We didn’t invent hedge funds or exotic securities. We didn’t push banks to issue ever-more-risky loans. We didn’t promote the idea of home “ownership” as the only legitimate form of the American dream. And we certainly didn’t expect the regulatory system our grandparents established to end the Great Depression to be twisted into an excuse to pass on what amounts to someone else’s gambling losses to our grandkids.

Here in Central Minnesota people didn’t gamble quite so willingly. Our local banks and credit unions made mostly good loans, and, unlike other places, we aren’t faced with entire neighborhoods of foreclosed homes. Housing prices never grew to insane heights, so had less distance to fall. Fiscally responsible families didn’t cash out their equity to pay for toys or vacations, but continued to save for college and retirement. People cut back in response to rising energy prices and made due with less while working more.

Some folks seem to have forgotten that element of the American dream — that hard work pays off, but sometimes hard times follow good. Most Americans share these same core values. So rather than worry about how we’ll find a way to bail out wealthy hedge fund investors our top priority should be a plan for a much broader economic recovery.

The Fed or Congress must certainly develop a way to stabilize credit markets and keep capital flowing to companies that employ American workers and produce things of value. But what we really want are leaders who will condemn the politics of greed and recognize that what Main Street needs is not a banker’s bailout, but an economic recovery plan that will create jobs for our friends and neighbors, stabilize housing markets, shore up our tax bases, and put families back in the position of planning for the future rather than worrying about today.

We’ve seen what Wall Street wants and luckily on Monday they didn’t get it outright. Before they regroup and try again we should demand candidates for public office address the bedrock issues of economic recovery first and foremost. From John McCain and Barack Obama down to local candidates for school board and city council, everyone who takes office in January will face the challenges of an economy in recession, declining tax revenues, and the continuing burden of the mortgage fiasco.

How will they address these problems next year? When the cuts come what will go first? When things turn around, how will we set priorities to ease the pain of the next recession? Main Street was heard loud and clear in Washington on Monday. Let’s be sure those same voices are heard on the campaign trails across Central Minnesota between now and Election Day as well.