Isebrand.com

Big Tobacco kills every 8 sec.

Today is World No Tobacco Day. With smoking generally on the decline in the U.S., and with smoking bans popping up everywhere from New York City to Ireland and Italy, have you ever wondered how Big Tobacco keeps making so much money to contribute to the Republican Party, its candidates and causes?

Because Big Tobacco sales of cigarettes in the developing world are great and getting better!

According to the World Health Organization:

Tobacco is the second major cause of death in the world. It is currently responsible for the death of one in ten adults worldwide (about 5 million deaths each year). If current smoking patterns continue, it will cause some 10 million deaths each year by 2020. Half the people that smoke today--that is about 650 million people--will eventually be killed by tobacco.

What is more:

Tobacco and poverty are inextricably linked. Many studies have shown that in the poorest households in some low-income countries as much as 10% of total household expenditure is on tobacco.

Stop and think about something: during the Terri Schiavo debacle, when the Republicans were using the force of the State to keep a dead person's body animated, they were also trying to paint Democrats of promoting a culture of death. The Republican Party financial base comes from:

*AMERICANS SUPPORTING THE DEATH PENALTY
*PRO-GUN ADVOCATES who even managed to get the GOP-controlled Congress to lift the ban on assault rifles!
*MAJOR POLLUTORS
*CONTRACTORS OF WEAPONS SYSTEMS, and
*TOBACCO

It is a truth so blatant and obvious--like the fact that a hot stove will burn flesh--as to have too often escaped comment: The modern Republican Party is utterly based on a culture and economy of death.

Thank a vet...

It's Memorial Day. For those of you with lives as pathetic as mine who are actually reading blogs instead of doing cool things on a holiday (grin), here's your reminder: Don't forget to thank a vet today for his or her service. Don't know one? Sure you do! Over in the Isebrand.com "Views" list, there's Democratic Veteran. If you get a chance, those of you online today, drop him a note!

Let's see.... I know of two WWII vets to remember, today: one alive, one not, and one person KIA in Vietnam--what Memorial Day's primary emphasis is supposed to be: on those who died while serving in the military--and a vet from the on-going Iraq War.

My "Uncle" Neil Slack! :)  Let's see--you're my grandma's brother, Neil, so you're really my Great Uncle, but who uses that term, anyway?

Uncle Neil served in the Pacific in WWII in the Navy.

And you're still kicking after all these years! ;)  I know you love your reunions across the country with your fellow sailors from the ships you were on. Hope you have a great holiday, today! And thanks for your service!

My old friend Dick Burt, who died of a heart attack less than a decade ago. Dick piloted B-25's over Guadalcanal, and saw shitloads of serious combat. Dick gave me some of the items he returned with from the war, including a Japanese soldier's personal battle flag (now framed in my apartment) and the G.I. Japanese-English phrase book with helpful everyday phrases like, "How many tanks are there?" and "Do not move or I will shoot you."

Nicholas Alexander. Never met him; but, I know he's the only other guy my mom dated besides my dad.... One date--between friends--and then they decided they'd just stay friends. :)  "Nicky" was a helicopter crewman in Vietnam, and was killed in action. I think he might have even been serving as a door gunner in a Huey at the time. If you know anything about that role, you probably know that a door gunner in a "hot" LZ (land zone) usually had his life expectancy measured in seconds. Several years ago, I took a photograph of his name on the Vietnam Memorial in D.C. and mailed it to my mother.

Finally, Steve Adcock, (and here) who was a Captain and Ranger with the 1st Armored Div. He returned from Iraq with two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star.

I guess I'm fortunate to not have had anyone I know well die in either of the Gulf War or Iraq, the conflicts (so far, only two--I anticipate more) of my generation.

Downing St. Memo

The Downing Street Memo. I hope that you've heard of it by now.

Go to Congressmen Conyors' site to read and sign the letter to Bush.

From the website, The Downing Street Memo:

The Downing Street "Memo" is actually a document containing meeting minutes transcribed during the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002—a full eight months prior to the invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003.

The Times of London printed the text of this document on Sunday, May 1, 2005, but to date US media coverage has been limited. This site is intended to act as a resource for anyone who wants to understand the facts revealed in this document.

The contents of the memo are shocking. The minutes detail how our government did not believe Iraq was a greater threat than other nations; how intelligence was "fixed" to sell the case for war to the American public; and how the Bush administration’s public assurances of "war as a last resort" were at odds with their privately stated intentions.

Teach progressivism

Prairie Weather had a great comment in response to my post more or less about Democratic cluelessness (for lack of a better word). I liked the observation so much, I wanted to elevate it from the comments and post it. Prairie Weather:

I think the reason we haven't done so is that we think our beliefs are obvious. Indisputable. Unquestionable. The most humane and decent!

There's an arrogance we don't see in ourselves but the conservatives (and many liberals like myself who spent a long period away from the US) see it very clearly and have capitalized on it. Our blindness handed them a series of victories via the votes of moderates/centrists who've mostly agreed with the tenets of liberalism and progressivism but who were sick to death of our presumptions. Explains how the label "elite" stuck so easily: "self-assurance to a fault" is what it comes down to... Limbaugh knows exactly how to press that button!

On Isebrand.com and elsewhere, I've written about investing in liberalism itself, not just in candidates, and not just during election cycles. (Here; scroll down to 1/14/2005's post). In other words, we have educating and converting to do. Prairie Weather's comment cuts right to the heart of that matter. Our beliefs as progressives aren't obviously compelling to everyone. And only by doing what the Christian right and especially the New Right (e.g. the neo-con crowd) did will we successfully bring more citizens on board:
*create the necessary think tanks,
*nurture future leaders,
*construct a large team of on-message "talking heads" to get on the air waves at a moment's notice,
*form community,
*concentrate especially on having a strong presence on college campuses, and
*give progressives of faith a real place at the table, since they will be our best witnesses to the "middle-churched," a term NCC head Bob Edgar uses: swing voters who are people of faith, usually evangelicals, who held their nose when they voted for Bush in 2004, and who are thought to represent a critically large and important block of potential Democratic votes in numerous Western and Midwestern states.

I think people like Gov. Howard Dean, now the Democratic Party Chair, understand this need. I have hope that we're already on our way towards developing a new progressive movement in America...after all, the survival of the Republic may very well depends on it.

Cool blogs. Cool cat.

I love it when this happens: I stumbled across two enjoyable blogs today, totally by chance--American Amnesia and Prairie Weather. Check them out.

It's cat blogging Friday...at least it is this Friday anyway. Here's Oliver again.... And here's yet more information than you care to know: He's getting a bit too fat, and has been put on a diet effective yesterday.

Why are they in power?

Today, Justin Krebs of Drinking Liberally (a great guy, a great organization--go buy a t-shirt!) in a post and e-mail today correctly identified that the Republican Party is outside of the mainstream. They are. So, Justin asked why are they in power? My answer: They're in power because they set strategy, organized, maintained discipline, never took their eyes off the prize, and out-maneuvered and out-politicked us. It's not all about voting machine conspiracies and corruption and a docile media.

No...to some extent, the Left has no one to blame but ourselves, including the ridiculously arrogant, condescending sermonizing from Dem organs, orgs, leaders, and officials--and the bi-costally-fixated media--that was largely oblivious about CLEAR national trends, especially religious and cultural ones, that almost never went reported in newspapers like The New York Times, and is only now starting to wake up.

For instance--take the Christian Right as a trend. People like Frederick Clarkson and Chip Berlet, two people I'm working with on a new project you should check out, Talk To Action, were covering the Christian Right nearly twenty years ago, and were telling anyone who'd listen: "Watch out, folks! These people 'get' electoral politics, and they're on the move." And they were ignored, their stories the sort of subject matter no one in the media or in the Democratic Party seemed interested in.) I'm a liberal's liberal, my blog demonstrates that. I'm partisan and am no accommodationist or centrist. BUT, I'm also an Iowan, born and raised and educated in Iowa before going to graduate school in Connecticut and then moving to New York. I was raised in the conservative evangelical sub-culture. And one of the first things I was struck by when I entered local Democratic politics in Manhattan, was how shockingly clueless literally 90% of the active rank and file was about... well, anything west of the Hudson River! Any you know what? Unfortunately, Kerry reflected and exuded that cluelessness, too. And for many swing-voters who plugged their nose when they voted for Bush (and they are legion!), it was less a vote for Bush and more a vote against Kerry. His inauthenticity was rank, and it left plenty of voters cold, confused, and even suspicious.

We still have a lot to learn. We knew the lessons once. Most of the leaders of the Christian right, including Paul Weyrich, have stated flatly--with not the slightest intended irony--that what they've modeled their own successful political operations on were the civil rights and labor movements...movements of the left, "our" movements. We gotta re-learn those lessons.

Dems learn that giving in lacks class?

From Avery Walker's column on the website, The Raw Story:

Allow the Dobson-fueled lunatic fringes of the party to fume. It will only help to provide constant reminders that most of the Republicans in Congress are out of control, and allow Democrats to cast themselves as defenders of American liberty. It may take two years for it to set in, but if they continue to be the solid opposition that they are finally becoming, it would be impossible for it not to pay off in 2006—no matter how many nay-saying defeat-addicts in their own ranks call for a centrist image.

Giving in is undignified. Standing up for what’s right? That’s class. Perhaps with this win, Democrats will finally figure this out.

Democrats have a clear victory here, not so much in substance, but in style. Their minority, and a handful of decent Republicans, have stopped an insanely un-republican power grab. Now let’s see if they can continue to keep their chins up.

I would nuance Walker's point additionally by saying that it's not just standing firm that impresses and shows class; a key factor in impressing the American people is how you stand firm. You have to do it with dignity, and with an extremely judicious amount of bravado, if any, and only if well-timed. We don't want to make the mistake that is more common among Republicans, frankly, which is sort of a cavalier and often preemptive sort of obstructionism, which makes them seem destructive, not "principled" (i.e., which shows them for what they are), a la New Gingerich shutting down the government, or even the Schiavo debacle.

We have to stand firm, but without ever seeming destructive or petulant.

Victory? "Nuclear option" remains.

The Senate compromise regarding the filibuster and the controversial seven Bush judicial appointments needing Senate confirmation is being lambasted by the rightwing blogosphere and Christian supremacist James Dobson (see article).

However, I wonder if the ladies doth protest too much? Dobson may be less unhappy than it appears, and is sounding fierce as a play to the Christian right--the GOP base that may be Dobson's base if he choses to run for office. As for the righty-wingy blogosphere, they're pros about staying "on message," it seems. All of their angst may be little more than coordinated crocodile tears.

So, is the compromise a Dem victory or not? Granted, if it is perceived as such, and perceived as a good thing by the majority of Americans, then the perception helps the Democratic Party, regardless of the reality: the Party looks like winners willing (finally) to find their voice, make a stand, and prevail; and, it will fuel the upward trend in the Democrats' favorability ratings in the polls, just when Bush's are sinking.

However...

*A bump in the Democratic Party's favorability ratings now, while certainly welcome, is no indication of where the favorability ratings will be come November 2006 and the mid-term elections. (But, to play devil's advocate to my devil's advocacy: a bump upward for Dems now might sustain itself long enough to affect some local 2005 races. Maybe. Probably...if Bush keeps hammering away at Social Security, which he probably will.)

*Doesn't this detail alone support the claim that the victory was slight: Patricia Owens is going to be confirmed (and two other extreme judges)! The New York Times from Sept., 2002:

Justice Owen has also shown a disturbing lack of sensitivity to judicial ethics. She has raised large amounts of campaign contributions from corporations and law firms, and then declined to recuse herself when those contributors have had cases before her. And as a judicial candidate, she publicly endorsed a pro-business political action committee that was raising money to influence the rulings of the Texas Supreme Court.

*The compromise does not take the so-called "nuclear option" off the table. The Republicans can still attempt to change the 225-year tradition of the Senate in a power grab at any point.

But...

*There may be secret deals and unannounced maneuvers as part of the compromise, too. They might involve pledges regarding votes on certain bills, or commitments for or against certain proposals. What is more, the issue of future Supreme Court nominees might have been a factor in Minority Leader Reid (D-NV) choosing to give in on three of the seven currently contested judicial appointments. Perhaps he reckons that showing flexibility now--demonstrating (again!) that the Democrats aren't obstructionists--will better position the Democrats in the event that they need to take a strong stand against a very conservative Supreme Court nominee.

I would find such reckoning naive though. The GOP leadership has already demonstrated time and again that unless you do 100% of what they demand, they will find you 100% lacking and brand you 100% un-American. They are not an honorable or intellectually honest lot. They are pure Machiavelli.

In the meantime, Dems are left without the ability to form a solid opinion about this compromise. We, the rank and file, need to exercise patience, keep some measured trust in Reid and the leadership, and withhold final assessment.

Harkin asks: What keeps you up at nite?

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) is asking visitors to his website to answer: "What Keeps You Up At Night?" Seriously, let him know. That 80% of all votes in the U.S. are counted by machines owned by only two companies--both owned by rabid Bush supporters? How about Iraq? Or the corporate ownership of all major media? Taxation injustice? A lack of a coherent Democratic Party vision and narrative? The rise of the Christian right's agenda for religious supremacy under the law?

Maryland Gov. vetoes limited gay rights bills

From The Washington Post: "The legislation, approved by the Democrat-controlled General Assembly, would have granted" fewer than "a dozen rights to couples that register with the state, including authority over certain medical and funeral-related decisions for one another." (My emphasis, obviously.)

From PNO: "Claiming the need to 'protect marriage,' Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. vetoed two bills that would have extended limited protections to same-sex couples who register with the state."

Of course, Ehrlich said he might introduce his own bill into the General Assembly, a bill that might extend some of the fewer than a dozen rights in the bills he vetoed.

I propose that it be call the "Let Them Eat Cake" bill.