It's time to sit down and have a very frank talk about the contractors responsible for servicing our troops in Iraq. Thus far, America as a whole has generally looked the other way on a variety of issues, choosing quiet outrage when tens of billions of taxpayer dollars go missing, when reports of rape in companies in Iraq pop up, when reports of contractors playing football with bricks of hundred-dollar bills (more taxpayer money) show up, etc.

I could go on. I could, really! It's not that difficult. What's difficult is finding someone in the Republican Party outraged over this. When the Republicans were in charge, there was absolutely NO oversight of the billions of tax dollars spent on contractors in Iraq. Now, the Democratic Party is holding massive oversight investigations (thanks in no small part to Congressman Waxman--drop him an email and thank him if you have the chance), and the stories keep on coming.

Let's take a look at one of those contractors, KBR. This particular company--despite its numerous complaints--has just tripled its first-quarter profits.

Rape -- Multiple women who formerly worked at the company have come forward accusing co-workers of rape. Every woman involved has offered a similar experience: following the rape, they were told any reporting to any authority would result in immediate termination. The justice department is NOT pursuing the investigation.

Electrocution of Troops -- Democratic chariman Henry Waxman is currently investigating whether the accidental electrocution of troops could have been avoided. According to a recent article by the New York Times, which found massive evidence suggesting KBR was intentionally cutting corners, there's good reason to believe this tragedy could have easily been avoided: "One electrician warned his KBR bosses in his 2005 letter of resignation that unsafe electrical work was “a disaster waiting to happen.” Another said he witnessed an American soldier in Afghanistan receiving a potentially lethal shock. A third provided e-mail messages and other documents showing that he had complained to KBR and the government that logs were created to make it appear that nonexistent electrical safety systems were properly functioning."

Stealing -- A former KBR employee was promoted after she was caught stealing from taxpayers. According to sworn testimony by two former co-workers, this was a regular occurrence. One even allegedly went so far as to melt down gold to make cowboy boots.

Tax dodging -- More than $500 million dollars in taxes has been saved by KBR thanks to very crafty, very devious tax-dodging schemes that involve off-shore shell companies.

Contaminated Water -- the Pentagon dismissed this report of KBR failing to provide safe water to troops in Iraq, suggesting that the water in Iraq is tainted to begin with and everyone should be drinking bottled water. There's only one problem: this report deals mainly with water used for cleaning clothes and bathing, and KBR's unwillingness to even provide this has resulted in numerous problems.

 

This is just one of the contractors in Iraq taking hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money every year. Why was there no oversight before the Democrats took control of Congress, despite that fact that billions of dollars went missing and multiple reports of contractor abuses were already being brought forward?

Here's a link for Congressman Waxman's page. Keep an eye on it. He's one of the best representatives we have in Congress, and he's doing an excellent job despite the stonewalling of every Bush administration official in Washington.

Well, here we go! It's time for the weekend homework, and this week I'm going to provide you with a number of links to Web sites that you can use again and again. I'll try and do this again in the future, but for now, this will give you a great head start. Bookmark these.

 

Climate Progress -- Run by a scientist who's actually conducted empirical research on global climate change, this is a great resource. He's funny, intelligent and has no problem calling out Democrats or Republicans who are unwilling to accept scientific facts. Global warming is real, it's important, and we have technology available right now to begin combating the problem.

David Sirota -- One of my favorite columnists and author of Hostile Takeover. Sirota takes Republicans and conservative Democrats to task, focusing mainly on corruption related to lobbying issues and how bribery can affect a politician's decisions. In addition, he makes a point of showing the positive side of government and how grassroots organizations are making a real difference. Well worth subscribing to.

Paul Krugman -- A liberal economist, one of the best on this planet. Krugman's analyses on everything from the dangers of unregulated forces to universal health care to classic economics is always well researched and intelligent.

Enjoy these. The most recent posts are excellent.
 

Patriotism is not blindly following leaders. Patriotism means finding the truth and always questioning, no matter what. What's happening in Iraq belongs to the Bush administration. No presidential administration will ever come close to this one, but that won't stop neoconservative historians from whitewashing history. I strongly encourage you to watch Bush's War on Frontline. Know the truth behind this war, and understand that the Bush administration will not fix this problem. The Bush administration will pass this trillion-dollar quagmire onto the next president, and there will be no easy solution.

Try to count how many laws were broken. Count how many lies were told, how little planning went into the post-invasion, how little intelligence there was. Learn from this. 

 

Click here to watch Bush's War on Frontline. 

 

The total count of American soldier deaths in Iraq has officially reached 4,000. While John McCain runs around the country convincing people the war in Iraq is going well (and having quite a few "senior moments" to boot), the reality on the ground is much, much different.

The fact of the matter is the "surge" is creating some decreased level of violence in Baghdad, and this makes sense: when you put 30,000 more troops in an area, obviously things are going to improve. But what else is at play here? The fact of the matter is a good portion of the "calm" in Iraq is due in large part to the fact that the Al-Sadr militia is in a ceasefire.

And now the ceasefire is showing signs of breaking. Rogue militias are breaking off and continuing violence, which is occurring today even as I write this. 

What will happen when this ceasefire completely unravels? Does anyone out there even remember how much money we're spending on Iraq, money we're borrowing which will eventually have to be paid off? Or is everyone falling under the influence of John McCain's hopelessly optimistic musings just like the press? 

Let's hold some hearings and find out where all this money is coming from, and maybe even try to get some answers out of the Bush Administration.

 

Yours,

Ken Brosky 

If you've been to a Starbucks in the past year, you've probably noticed that each cup has a quote from a celebrity or quasi-celebrity (or just an interesting person). Why Starbucks asked Newt Gingrich to contribute to this program is beyond me, but I think it's worth a laugh. And given the current state of our financial system, I think we could all use a laugh right now.

Here's his quote:

"On the battlefield of ideas, winning requires moving toward the sound of the guns."
~Newt Gingrich.

Why is this funny? Because Newt Gingrich is a Chickenhawk. "Chickenhaws" are conservatives who support war but will not serve in the military, and typically have attempted to avoid serving in the military at all costs. Gingrich is no exception. When he had the chance to fight in Vietnam, Gingrich sought graduate school deferment instead. So, in the interest of truth, I've come up with a much more accurate quote for Gingrich to use:

"On the battlefield of ideas, you can find me a thousand miles away hiding under my bed. If I hear the sound of a gun, I'll probably cry. Heck, the sound of a car backfiring is probably enough to make me pee my pants."

Don't hate me, but I really get a kick out of this. It's funny in a morbid sort of way. After all, these are all the guys who cheerleaded us into the Iraq occupation that's going to cost us $3 trillion dollars. Rove, Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitze ... they all passed up the chance to serve, and then they went and screwed us all over.

Some more, courtesy of Fred Crawford (from before 2006 elections):

The Democratic leadership in the House and Senate:

House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt - Served his country in uniform,  1965-71
House Minority Whip David Bonior - Served his country in uniform,  1968-72
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle - Served his country in uniform,  1969-72
The Real President Albert Gore - Served his country in uniform, 1969-71

The Republican leadership in the House and Senate:

Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich - avoided the draft, did not serve.
Majority Leader Dick Armey- avoided the draft, did not serve.
Majority Whip Tom Delay - avoided the draft, did not serve.
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott - avoided the draft, did not serve.

 

Congratulations, Wisconsin, on choosing Barack Obama. It's good to see that Hillary Clinton's recent populist rhetoric isn't sucking too many people in ...

Don't get me wrong, though. Clinton is definitely not a bad candidate, but her insistence that she's an economic populist is an entirely new thing, and it's beginning to show. No matter who wins, it'll be easy to support either candidate against John McCain. Speaking of which, why don't we take a look at some homework readings for the weekend?

John McCain's lobbyist connections -- In case you haven't noticed, there's a lot of brew-ha-ha regarding McCain's cozy connections with one very pretty lobbyist, as well as others. When even HIS aides are getting nervous, there's definitely some substance to the story. Don't be fooled by Fox News ... McCain's lobbyist connections have existed for a long, long time. Whether more evidence surfaces or not ... we'll see. Keep an open mind.

Rick Renzi (R-AZ) indicted --  Yes, he does have connections to John McCain. Muckraker has more.

"A Trade Transformation" by David Sirota -- Read about Hillary Clinton's history on NAFTA.

 Turkish Troops in Iraq -- Following Kurdish separatist rebels, and of course this is making things a little sketchy in northern Iraq.

Al-Sadr will extend his ceasefire -- Do you still honestly think the "Surge" quelled the violence in Baghdad? Or was it the fact that the leader of the largest militia in the country called for a ceasefire? He's now calling for an extension to the ceasefire, which will make the "Surge" look even more successful. By the way, for those of you who remember Bush saying there was going to be a troop drawdown, that's not happening anymore, either.
 

 

 

 

 Here's the scariest part of the 2008 elections:

This young man could determine the Democratic presidential candidate.

That's right, Jason Rae's vote counts more than yours. In our democratic process, his vote--and the votes of other super delegates--has more sway over who gets elected than yours. It's all a part of complicated system designed by the Democratic party during the middle of the twentieth century in an attempt to make things a little more fair. The problem is, now these super delegates are the make-or-break votes in a close primary process. Barack Obama has more votes and  has won more states than Hillary, but she has more support from super delegates whose votes count more than the delegates that Obama is winning through the popular vote.

Is this fair? The worst part, in my opinion, is that a lot of super delegates have already pledge support for Hillary Clinton regardless of how the state votes. That means even in states where Barack Obama won a significant majority, there may be a handful of super delegates casting their votes for Clinton. This is not a representative democracy. What's the point in voting if there are others who carry more sway and can shift the entire election?

The governor of Maine has chosen a more democratic option: he will cast his vote for whoever wins the Maine caucuses (it ended up to be Obama). That's right--he actually plans on representing his citizens. But this isn't always the case.

For more information, read here at the Nation.

Contact your representative and tell them to vote democratically. 

 
Yours,

Ken Brosky
 

In the interest of attempting to contribute positively to my community, I'm offering you a list of reading materials to help you exercise your brain during the weekend. Rather than wasting your weekend injecting electric heroin into your brain, here are some articles that are relevant to your life and may even help you learn something (gasp!). Not only that, each article only takes about ten minutes to read. Go ahead. I know, it's scary at first, learning on the weekend ... but maybe that kind of mindset is exactly why we're in so much trouble in the first place ...

"Guns Beat Green," by Naomi Klein. Why the security bubble is gaining more investments than green initiatives.

"The Democrats' Class War," by David Sirota.

"The Cost of Toppling Saddam," by Robert Shapiro. Even in 2002, economists predicted a recession related to the war in Iraq and the rising cost of oil.

"You're **** right I would," Cheney says in answer to whether he would attack Iraq. Of course he would ... he's made a handsome profit for himself and his friends.

 

Cheers,

Ken Brosky
 

While you're whittling away the day with your various chores, here's something to think about: How many tax cuts have been passed since the Reagan era?

The answer: None. Because cutting taxes on a budget deficit means the government is simply borrowing money to give back to us. Which means tax cuts are actually tax "Deferments." Every time Congress cuts taxes without balancing the budget, all that money piles onto the national deficit, which will eventually be paid by us at a later date or our children.

The same goes with the Iraq war. We can fight there as long as Bush wants, but the money will eventually come out of our pockets. He is the only president to have ever cut taxes during a time of war, skyrocketing the deficit further in order to deceive the public into believe our current economic system is still "OK." It's not. And when the security bubble pops (i.e. the military industrial complex), things are only going to get worse. And THEN while we're trying to figure out how to pay off our personal debts, the government is going to need help paying off the national debt.

And then what will it do? "Cut" taxes again to increase spending?
 

John Edwards has officially dropped out of the race. It's a disappointment because this was without a doubt the most progressive candidate we've had in a long time, and the only one with the guts to literally stand up against our corporate elite. As a result, the corporate elite--especially the corporate media--did little to promote his presidency in the way they do with Obama and Clinton. I know Russ Feingold and others have criticized Edwards for a number of votes he made while senator, but--and it pains me to say this because I have nothing but respect for Feingold--I disagree with such criticism. Edwards voted poorly a few times, but he has since demonstrated that he's learned from those mistakes, and understands why those were mistakes.

Worse, Edwards was the only Democratic candidate who overwhelmingly defeated every single Republican in a mock-presidential poll. What does this mean? It means Obama and Clinton both have a long, long road ahead of them.

But this isn't all bad news. There is a silver lining here, and that is Edwards literally commanded close to 15% of the popular vote in every single state. His support can literally change the outcome of the Democratic race. And he has stated repeatedly that he wants both Obama and Clinton to essentially take more progressive issues.

What does this mean? It means both Obama and Clinton will have to step it up. No more skirting around the corporatism issue. No more dancing around the idea of combating poverty or half-cocked health care solutions or even waffling on the war in Iraq. Now, with Edwards' support up in the air, both Obama and Clinton will have to take a harsher stance on the issues that so many Americans care passionately about.

May the best candidate win.

 

Yours,

Ken Brosky
 

What's the point in having a Congress at all when President Bush makes signing statements on every single piece of legislation that crosses his desk? Let me explain in further detail for you with the help of Constitutional scholar John W. Dean:
 
"Suppose a new law requires the President to act in a certain manner - for instance, to report to Congress on how he is dealing with terrorism. Bush's signing statement will flat out reject the law, and state that he will construe the law "in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties."

The upshot? It is as if no law had been passed on the matter at all."

 This is especially troubling when it comes to torture, which you should definitely be upset about.

But most importantly, this has a giant impact on the occupation of Iraq. Bush's most recent signing statement suggests he might consider putting permanent bases inside Iraq in the future, suggesting he has absolutely NO INTEREST in bringing our troops home anytime soon, or ending this war. This is the same president who talked extensively about not "passing the buck" to the next president, and yet what we have now is an absolute quagmire and another state--Afghanistan--teetering on the brink, economic instability and a slew of other problems that the next president will have to tackle.

I say this with absolute confidence: The president is an authoritarian. He is a monarch. He does not care what laws Congress passes, because he will simply sidestep them when needed.

Click here to contact Gwen Moore, our representative. Tell her that she should focus on bringing this into the public light. Tell her this issue is important.

 
Want to learn more about Bush's many, many, many signing statements? Click here.

 

Yours,

 Ken Brosky

 

In honor of our local conservative radio hosts, I thought I would pass along this little story that I originally found on Media Matters. Read it, because I'll comment more below:

 "A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN"

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."
 

Obviously, it's a little one-sided. That's the point. But what interested me more were the responses by conservatives to this particular post. Some argued that, obviously, it was one-sided and typical liberal junk. Another person--much to the joy of the conservative bloggers--attempted to create a conservative-friendly version called "Joe Democrat." The problem is the story didn't work in the same way. Rather than show how Joe Democrat's life has been made better by Conservative-based "Free Market" policies, instead it's based almost entirely on myths and hearsay, the typical fodder that "Joe Republican" makes a point of using for satire. Phrases like "post-traumatic slavery disorder" and suggesting inner-city students are capable only when it comes to fitting on condoms.

Some of the arguments aren't even plausible! Besides outright inaccuracies applied to liberals that could just as easily be applied to conservative politicians, he suggest liberals are behind the classification of alcohol as a disease (they're actually called scientists, in this case). Rural electrification is considered evil in this case, since Joe Democrat's life was easier when he was "living off the land." A lot of this is based on the classic privileged white man's concept of freedom, and how much of it the big bad government takes. But how free, truly, we rural citizens when private power companies refused to provide them with electricity because it wasn't profitable? Something for another time, perhaps.

Almost all of the arguments are based on stereotypes, some proven entirely wrong, some barely credible even in this form. "Joe Democract" even manages to outright slander John Kerry's war record (Kerry served in the Navy for four years, hardly the type of behavior from a "draft dodger"). But the point is that this rebuttal offers relatively no examples of how conservative ideology has helped the average American. Because most of the time they don't. But the Republican Party can't say that, because then it would never win elections. So it relies on rallying its supporters with cries of "freedom!" and convincing regular Joe's that the government is evil.

 

Yours,

Ken Brosky 

 

 

Funny how, just two years ago, there was little to no talk about "The Economy," as if the wage disparities that have been occurring since the Reagan era weren't worth talking about, as if the accrued debt from working-class Americans wasn't a problem, as if the skyrocketing health care costs and low-wage jobs were simply an effect of a healthy "Economy."

What's changed so far this year? I'll tell you exactly what's changed: the rich are getting pinched. Now, all of a sudden, it's a massive issue. Money is falling out of the hands of the wealthiest one percent and now we're suddently facing a crisis. I've got news for our government: this has been a crisis ever since Ronald Reagan took office, ever since he began applying free market policies like cutting taxes for the wealthiest of the wealthy in order to let it "Trickle Down" while raising taxes for the rest of us and shutting down as many government programs as possible, including the Department of Labor which now almost always sides with corporations. And then Clinton pushes through "Free Trade" that cuts American jobs and forces the rest of the working class to compete with desperate third-world individuals who are more than happy to work in sweatshop-like conditions for dollars a day simply to survive in their deregulated economies pushed through by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Conditions have been getting worse since the 80's, and now anytime anyone suggests actually taxing the rich at a fair level, conservatives demonize them as "Socialists." Anything that could actually level the playing field, any regulations or fair taxes on the rich are demonized immediately by conservative think tanks who pretend to be defending "Freedom."

"Freedom!" they say, "Freedom for the market to regulate itself! Freedom for individuals who reject BIG GOVERNMENT, Freedom for all!"

Who are these people who claim to fight for freedom? Why, they're the freest people on the planet:

Rich. White. Men.

When they cry "Freedom!" they mean only freedom for themselves and their friends, to accumulate more wealth and push down more workers. The free market has failed miserably a number of times since the 70's, which is why these conservative think tanks focus on demonizing all criticism as "Socialism" and shove the word "Freedom" down our collective mouth without a spoonful of sugar.

Now all of a sudden the market is stumbling and the rich are losing money. And NOW, only now, it becomes a problem. I've got news for Bush and the Democrats: I'm taking my rebate and paying off my debt ... let this corrupt economy continue its freefall. You think this is bad? Just wait until the security bubble bursts. The Bush administration has spent close to 1 trillion dollars propping up the military industrial complex, pouring money in that doesn't provide a return on investment (like, say, a new highway or better schools). You think this is bad? It's gonna get a lot worse.