------------ New ------------

Shifting Sands: Jewish Women Confront the Israeli Occupation

Shifting Sands: Jewish Women Confront the Israeli Occupation (Paperback)

~ Osie Gabriel Adelfang (Editor), Cindy Sheehan (Foreword), Amira Hass (Foreword)

   
Progressive Partners





United Progressives does not necessarily endorse the views of our contributors.

Search

Books by Anna Baltzer

Banner

Rethink Afghanistan

Order the complete Rethink Afghanistan documentary on DVD
Banner

Books by Members

Banner
Refresh page to see more titles.

Endorsements

Green Party Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney Endorses United Progressives Platform

Endorsements

Tennessee Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate Chris Lugo endorses our platform

From FPIF

FPIF Latest Content
FPIF Latest Content
Congressional Politics
An Easy Way to Dramatically Change Congress PDF Print E-mail
Written by David Swanson   
Wednesday, 18 August 2010 08:58
David Swanson

There are lots of ways to change Congress that falsely appear easy, that would alter the rules and patterns of behavior if only Congress were already fixed and willing to make the changes, or if we owned the television networks, or if people could suddenly hear what they're paid good money never to hear. But I've got a way to change Congress that is actually easy.

Congress lacks leadership. There is a progressive caucus, but it has never fought for anything. It doesn't fund its members' campaigns. It doesn't withhold votes needed for passing bills. It just does rhetoric. There are committees, but they don't subpoena, they don't send the police to pick up witnesses, they don't fine witnesses who refuse to answer questions. Congress thinks oversight was an oversight. If asked to put future generations into debt to fund wars, Congress asks "Would you like a side of drones with that?" Congress doesn't want power.

But what would happen if we were to put some people in Congress who would stand up and fight like you and I would? For example: David Segal. Here's a guy who says

Last Updated on Wednesday, 18 August 2010 09:01
 
PACPAC: People Against Corporate People Are Candidates PDF Print E-mail
Written by David Swanson   
Wednesday, 09 June 2010 19:41

David SwansonDavid Segal is a candidate for Congress from Providence, R.I. who is not only running as a real person, but running against permitting corporations to claim the rights of persons.  Recently the Providence Journal reported:

"Segal said he just introduced a resolution calling for a federal Constitutional Convention to address the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which held that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections. 'Our democracy belongs to the people, not to corporate interests,' he said."
 

Here's someone running for Congress who will support congressional efforts to amend the Constitution to undo corporate personhood and the equating of money with speech, but who -- as a member of the state legislature in Rhode Island has already done something that, to my knowledge, no one in any other state government has done: propose a national Constitutional Convention.  While we haven't done this for two and a quarter centuries, it is far more likely the way in which we will reform our government than advancing our cause within Congress -- unless we elect

 
Jim Dean's Sorta Kinda Support for Marcy Winograd PDF Print E-mail
Written by David Swanson   
Wednesday, 26 May 2010 09:02

David SwansonProgressive organizations set up to promote and fund progressive congressional candidates tend, as a rule, not to do so. Candidates like the Democrats and Greens listed here tend not to get support. Candidates like Joe Sestak and Bill Halter attract the lion's share of progressive backing, not because they could pass any progressive platform test (they couldn't), but because of the awfulness of the incumbents they are opposing. Give it a few years, and perhaps the awfulness of Sestak and Halter will lead to a "progressive" focus on replacing them.

The usual excuse for not backing good candidates is that they aren't likely to win. But several of those linked to above have an excellent chance of winning. Others are borderline, and would have an excellent chance of winning if they had more support -- so, they're caught in a Catch-22. And others would probably be contenders next time around if they made their races close this time. In addition, a policy of backing only candidates whose platforms are legitimately progressive would push other candidates, including the incumbents they challenge, to improve their platforms.

Some of the true progressives being denied institutional support are going up against incumbents as bad or worse than Senators Specter and Lincoln (Sestak and Halter's

 
52 Congressional Candidates Oppose War Spending PDF Print E-mail
Written by David Swanson   
Tuesday, 25 May 2010 08:50
David Swanson Fifty-two congressional candidates and 18 activist organizations are opposing any more funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and inviting more candidates, incumbents, and organizations to join them.  The 52 candidates, from 21 different states, include 19 Democrats, 16 Libertarians, 15 Greens, 2 Independents, and 0 Republicans (and more may be added to the website by the time you read this).  Forty-six are candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives, and six for the Senate.  

They do not all agree with each other on many topics, including their reasons for opposing war spending.  But they all back this short statement:

"The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost Americans over $1 trillion in direct costs, and over $3 trillion altogether.  At a time when our national debt exceeds $13 trillion, we can no longer afford these wars.  It's time for Congress to reject any funding except to bring all our troops safely home."

The Coalition Against War Spending ( http://warisacrime.org/caws ) has posted online a variety of divergent statements -- in text and video -- from signers elaborating on their
 
Senator Coburn Opposes, Will Filibuster War Bill Unless Paid For PDF Print E-mail
Written by David Swanson   
Monday, 17 May 2010 17:00
David SwansonSenator Tom Coburn, a Republican from Oklahoma, is committed to opposing a supplemental spending bill that includes $33.5 billion to escalate war in Afghanistan, unless the funds to pay for it are found.

On May 10th Senator Coburn wrote to his colleagues asking for their support for an amendment that would offset the new spending in this bill with cuts elsewhere. I spoke on Monday with Senator Coburn's communications director John Hart who assured me that Coburn intends to oppose the supplemental spending bill unless such an amendment is passed.

Hart said that Senator Coburn's position is that our nation is spending way beyond our means, that Congress has been violating PAYGO rules frequently (statutory rules requiring that all spending be paid for with new revenue or offsetting cuts). Hart said that Senator Coburn has frequently put holds on bills and believes this is justified in the current instance, regardless of whether he's been completely consistent in the past. The PAYGO statute makes an exception for supplemental war spending, but -- as Coburn points out -- this spending blatently violates the spirit o
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next > End >>

Page 1 of 7

Artwork by Nohad Nassif

Free Membership

By joining, it is understood that you support progressive values, as generally defined by our platform. Notice: We are currently having difficulties with attempts to log in using Internet Explorer v.6. For the moment we recommend using a different browser.

Members Online

None

Smart Bookmarker

Banner

Hiyam Noir Poetry

Hiyam Noir Avatar

"In the Toxic Garden"
those dead uncountable


The impossibilities
of my dreams
did not discourage me
from continuing to believe

so I am returning

as in my worst nightmares

more

Books We Recommend

The Bush dynasty, the powerful forces that put it in the White House, and what their influence means for America
Banner

News & Opinion

Think Progress
  • Nearly Half The Public Is ‘Very Uncomfortable’ With Phasing Out Social Security For Private Accounts

    A recently-released Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll surveyed Americans on a variety of issues, including their views on the country’s direction, their approval of the president’s handling of the economy, and what they think of Congress’ performance.

    One section of the poll asked respondents how they would feel about a candidate who ran based on several different policy platforms. Respondents then replied whether they were enthusiastic about the platform, comfortable with it, had reservations about it, were very uncomfortable with the position, if it made no difference, or they weren’t sure. The results were listed numerically responding to each category from left to right.

    The two issues that netted the highest “uncomfortable” rating from poll respondents were Bush’s economic policies and Social Security privatization. 39 percent of those polled responded that they’d be uncomfortable with voting for a candidate who supported the economic polices of former president George W. Bush. But the position that provoked the highest level of opposition was supporting “phasing out Social Security and instead [supporting] allowing workers to invest their Social Security contributions in the stock market,” with 49 percent of respondents saying the position made them “very uncomfortable“:

    poll7

    While the poll shows that only 21 percent of the public is “enthusiastic” or “comfortable” with slowly privatizing Social Security, there are a number of leading Republican officeholders who have endorsed the concept of doing so. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the “ranking member on the House Budget Committee,” has put together a road map for privatizing the program that is similar to President Bush’s failed 2005 plan. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has also indicated that he’d like to revive the Bush effort. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has talked about the need to “wean” Americans off the program.

    Meanwhile, a number of leading Republicans running for office have also endorsed radical plans to privatize the program. Both Pennsylvania Republican senate candidate Pat Toomey and Rand Paul have endorsed at least partially privatizing Social Security. Nevada Republican senate candidate Sharon Angle has called for the program to be “phased out,” and Alaska Republican senate candidate Joe Miller has gone even further, declaring that the program is simply unconstitutional.

  • NM Corrections Secretary Refusing To Penalize Contract-Breaching Private Prison Company He Used To Work For

    joeThe escape of three detainees from a privately-run prison in Arizona last month “put the spotlight on…private prisons,” as critics of prison privatization pointed to the “lax oversight” of the private prison system as one reason the inmates were able to so easily break out of their facilities.

    Now, the New Mexico Independent (NMI) reports that neighboring state New Mexico is experiencing similar lax oversight as “the New Mexico Corrections Department has not collected penalties from two private prison operators despite repeated contract violations, costing the state potentially millions of dollars in uncollected fines.” The two prison operators in question, GEO Group, and Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), have been found to be understaffing the prisons they operate, not meeting contractual obligations.

    In an interview with NMI, New Mexico Corrections Secretary Joe Williams “acknowledged that the vacancy rates at the prisons GEO and CCA operate often are higher than their contracts allow,” but said he “decided against punishing the firms because the prisons they manage ‘are outstanding.’” He explained that the prisons’ contract doesn’t say that he “shall” fine the companies for violating the terms of the agreement, but rather that he “can”:

    The New Mexico Corrections Department has not collected penalties from two private prison operators despite repeated contract violations, costing the state potentially millions of dollars in uncollected fines, state officials have told The Independent. [...]

    Williams acknowledged that the vacancy rates at the prisons GEO and CCA operate often are higher than their contracts allow, but he decided against punishing the firms because the prisons they manage “are outstanding,” he said. “They are not having escapes; there are no substantial problems. If there were a problem I would be down there penalizing them,” he said. [...]

    “The contract does not say I shall do it. The contract says I can do it,” Williams told The Independent.

    In choosing not to penalize the GEO and CCA prisons for understaffing their facilities, Williams is far from an impartial arbiter. As his biography page on the New Mexico Corrections Department website boasts, in 1999, the “Geo Group, Inc. (formerly known as Wackenhut) hired Joe as the warden for the Lea County Correctional Facility, and charged him with turning around the troubled prison in Hobbs, New Mexico. The facility eventually became a flagship prison. Agreeing to serve as its warden proved to be the right move, both professionally and personally. In fact, Joe liked the city of Hobbs so much, he named his beloved basset hound Sir Hobbs.” It adds that Williams’ experience at GEO gave him “rare insight into the world of private corrections” and made him an “ideal candidate for the job he now holds.” The biography notes that the state’s incarceration system is “44 percent privatized, and leads the nation in prison privatization.”

    The Governor’s website notes that Williams is “the first private sector Warden ever to be selected to head a state correctional system in the nation.” It now appears that Williams still has some loyalty to his former employer, and in refusing to penalize GEO for its clear violation of its contract, is exhibiting a clear conflict of interest.

  • Rick Scott’s Immigrant Running Mate Accused Of ‘Evading’ Questions On Immigration

    Last week, gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott (R-FL) tapped Jennifer Carroll (R-FL), an African American immigrant from Trinidad, to share the Republican ticket with him as lieutenant governor. “Working together, we will broaden the base of our party,” Scott said as he introduced Carroll. However, if Scott hopes to use Carroll to broaden a minority base that includes disgruntled Latino and immigrant voters who he has isolated via his hardline immigration stance, he may want to ask his running mate to brush up on her talking points. The Palm Beach Post published an awkward exchange between one of its reporters and Carroll:

    CARROLL: I agree with Rick and his position on legal immigration. Illegal immigration I do not support because I feel that we should not be rewarding illegal activities.

    PALM BEACH POST: But does that mean you support bringing an Arizona-style immigration enforcement law to Florida?

    CARROLL: Well let me you ask you back, what is your impression about Arizona-style immigration laws?

    PALM BEACH POST:What is my impression?

    CARROLL: Yes.

    PALM BEACH POST:It’s a law that requires police when enforcing other laws to check immigration status if there is a suspicion. [...]

    CARROLL: We haven’t gotten into the nitpicky as to how a bill is going to be crafted. There’s already a bill by Will Snyder that the House has already filed. What the containment of that bill is, how it is going to come out of the House or Senate, is another story

    PALM BEACH POST:Do you support Representative Snyder’s bill?

    CARROLL: I have not read the bill, so I cannot tell you.

    Watch it:

    During his primary against Bob McCollum (R-FL), Scott poured millions of dollars into ads supporting Arizona’s tough immigration law and advocating for one like it in Florida. Snyder’s immigration bill, which McCollum unveiled as part of his campaign platform, was largely a desperate response to Scott’s pandering on the issue. Since then, GOP Latino leaders have been publicly asking Scott to abandon his anti-immigrant rhetoric. So far, there is no indication that either he or his running mate is listening. Read more at the Wonk Room.

CB Workflows

Favorite Quotations

"We have to be willing to tell the hard truth about the power we have to corrupt the most pure, most sublime recognition of truth.

You can't finally tell the truth through the mind, because the mental process is busy with damage control. But there are a few questions you can ask to support truth telling, and you can deeply examine and ruthlessly, often painfully, answer them.

The questions are, 'What is my life standing for?' What has it stood for?' 'What is the deepest call for my life to stand for?' All you have to do is be really willing to look very carefully and see." - Gangaji