John McCain's vote against Martin Luther King Day was no mistake, and you need to understand this because race plays a BIG role in the modern conservative movement. It plays a big role because the modern conservatives first began in the late 50's to play on the racism of white Americans in order to turn what was once a very tiny sliver of the Republican Party into what we now know as the GOP.

There was a time, in the mid-fifties, where white voters in the south were just as likely to vote Democrat or Republican. The reason they did so was because, from the late 30's through the 50's, Republicans had generally accepted the successful policies of the New Deal. Republicans HAD to accept these policies because they, along with pro-labor, pro-union reform, America had reached what economist Paul Krugman refers to as "The Great Compression," a society where financial inequality was at its lowest in our nation's history. Everyone was beginning to benefit, thanks in no small part to the large union movement (helped by the government's pro-labor reform), which helped guarantee fair wages for union members and had the effect of positively affecting wages in competing non-union jobs.

But there was always a small minority dedicated to eliminating the New Deal policies, including cutting taxes for the rich and eliminating the government's pro-labor reforms. This movement--Modern Conservatism--saw its chance in the late fifties when Democrats were pushing for civil rights reforms. In 1957, The National Review published an editorial arguing that whites could suppress African-Americans because whites were the superior race:

"The central question that emerges--and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizen, born Equal--is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes--the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race ... sometimes the numerical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalance of its will worth the terrible price of violence." 

 Not only did the National Review make a point of noting our Constitution as "merely ... a catalog", it made a point of affirming that whites had the right to commit violence in order to retain their superiority, a right many racist whites agreed upon late in the fifties and during the sixties. When President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights act into law, the entire South became lost to the Democratic Party and continues to this day to be almost impenetrable (although the racial barrier is collapsing in recent years).

And slowly, Modern Conservatism grew, despite its interest in appealing primarily to the richest one percent of Americans. Slowly, the fringe group became the Republican Majority, and the Republican Party began its attempts to tear down the New Deal policies while cutting taxes for the rich despite having no evidence at all to suggest it would help the economy (there were, in fact, no economists at all in the early days of "supply-side theory," confessed Irving Kristol.). "Liberal Premissiveness," according to Richard Nixon, were at the heart of America's problems.

Modern Conservatism leaped into the fray with Ronald Reagan, who announced his bid for president in 1980 in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the same town where three civil rights activists were killed in 1964. His speech centered on "states' rights," and there was no denying what the underlying tones were. They were present in another famous speech, one in which he described a so-called "Welfare Queen"--and story that was elaborate fiction to begin with--that never mentioned race, and yet everyone knew what color this woman's skin was. It continued, spreading even into the most libertarian gospels, like those found in Ron Paul's own self-published newsletters.

Through it all, there was always an I'll-scratch-your-back mentality, which was necessary for Modern Conservatism to survive. Loyalty was rewarded above all else, and once Modern Conservatism dominated the Republican Party, Republicans were almost forced to go along with the policies (especially once Karl Rove jumped into the mix and proved himself capable of gutting the Republican Party of anyone who supported New Deal policies). Cronyism was always rewarded with new jobs, and the Bush administration is a clear example at every single level. Even John McCain is learning this now, going out of his way to flip-flop on every single ideology that once made him a "Maverick." Now he'll cut taxes for the rich. Now he'll cozy up to the religious right. Now he'll sell himself out to lobbyists.

Through it all, Modern Conservatism has remained true to its roots in helping only the richest one percent of Americans, and yet the Republican Party has continued to garner strength. While topics like national security and religion and abortion rights have always had a minor role in that popularity, only race has has stood the test of time. John McCain knew the rules back in the day, and he knows them now. 

Now he'll apologize for voting against MLK Day. But you know what? He knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he voted against it. He was following Modern Conservatism in order to reap the rewards of its growing power. Had he not, he would be nothing but a footnote in history by this point.

The good news is that racism is losing its popularity even in the deepest heart of the south, and tolerance has grown by leaps and bounds. It's only a matter of time before a significant majority of Americans realize that our country has spent the last 35 years helping only the richest one percent. Once that time comes, Modern Conservatism will desperately clutch at straws before finally disappearing (and indeed already does, preying on our various fears), taking John McCain with it. 

 For those of you interested in learning more, I heartily suggest "The Conscience of a Liberal," by award-winning economist Paul Krugman. The information detailed here represents a fraction of information you'll find in his book.

Yours,

Ken Brosky
 

 Let's have a little fun today. Today we're going to take a look at a conservative hit piece in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and we're going to dissect it. We're going to take it apart and examine it much in the same way you might examine a frog in Science class. Why do we examine frogs in science class? Why, to learn from them, of course! So it goes with this particular editorial. We're going to learn about it so we can more readily identify hit pieces in the future (and there are a LOT of hit pieces out there). This is going to be a great time.

First, read this editorial by Al Smith.

Fun, isn't it? Before we delve into things, we need to create our first rule. This is an important rule because it will distinguish Hit Pieces from other editorials.

Rule #1: Hit Pieces generally target positive groups, like environmentalism.

Next, we're going to take a look at the wording. This piece is filled with negative words, and they're all aimed at the environmentalism movement.Radicals, zealots, criminal selfishness ... all of these words have one goal in mind: to demonize environmentalism to the reader will not identify with it. The more Smith demonizes them, the less the reader is likely to say, "Hey! I'm an environmentalist!" No reader is going to say that if the environmentalists are radical zealots bent on shutting down all of our electricity, right? Well, few would, at least. But the goal, obviously, is to put the reader on Smith's side. The more he can negatiely portray the environmental movement, the more he's free to ridicule it, and the more he's free to ridicule it, the more readers will identify with his position. The environmental movement exists as "factions," and its attempts at creating awareness are little more than "spectacles" at best. You get the picture. So let's create another rule:

Rule #2: Hit Pieces rely on negative words to ensure readers do not identify with the target (in this case, environmentalism)

Now let's take a look at the imagery. The world according to Al Smith is a scary place, and the environmental movement is only making things worse. Images of empty cars and streets, the "Dark Ages," empty factories ... this piece has it all. If you're an environmentalist, says Smith, then you obviously want to destroy our very way of life. Powerful stuff, and these images are peppered throughout (and usually associated with the negative words we looked at before). Smith even goes so far as to quote a diplomat from World War I, and this is not unintentional. Smith is conjuring up powerful images without explicitly mentioning it. When we think of World War I, the words "Senseless" and "violence" have a tendency to come to mind, and it's no mistake that he's using this World War I quote. His goal is to ensure readers are relating the "senselessness" of the environmental movement with the senselessness of World War I, as well as all the violent imagery that goes along with it. Let's make another rule:

Rule #3: Hit Pieces use negative, scary and oftentimes violent imagery to demonize their target

 There is more at work here. In order to make his point more succinct, Smith attempts to group environmentalists together by suggesting NOTHING is good enough for them except complete abandonment of electricity in general. No solution works, only MORE government, MORE regulation. He also relies heavily on the old tirades of the conservatives, including the evils of government, the loss of "Freedom" and of course those pesky new light bulbs that are just too efficient. There's only one problem with this argument: the entire point of Earth Hour was to make a very specific statement:

Human beings are willing to regulate themselves.

That was the point, wasn't it? Smith even mentions this early on in his piece, that the idea was that human beings are not so indentured to technology that they can't turn out a light for an hour, the idea that human beings can make a BIG difference without government help. Sure, it would be nice if our government enforced basic environmental regulations, But under the Bush administration, that's not going to happen. They believe in market-based regulation, and while it's a noble ideal, it just isn't going to happen. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says, the free market is incapable of controlling pollution, so there HAS to be government involvement.

Events like Earth Hour frighten Smith because they show him that he's in an extreme minority. While others are attempting to solve the problems facing our generation and future generation, Smith is unwilling to offer solutions himself, relying instead on attacking everyone else. He's takes solace in knowing the Irish pubs and the Chinese are on his side (as if this is truly something to be bragging about: the Chinese government also sides with the Sudanese government, right?), and attempts to demonize environmentalists much in the same way conservatives have been doing so largely since Rush Limbaugh made his debut.

All right, enough ranting. I think you get the picture. Hopefully, by carefully examining this, you'll be able to spot these pieces in the future. Learn from them. As wrong as they may be, they're a powerful method being used by the modern conservative movement and deserve attention.

 
Yours,

Ken Brosky
 

What's the connection between the two, you ask? Well, for starters, they're both extremely incompetent. Make no mistake about it, Osama bin Laden is an egomaniac with relatively low intelligence when it comes to terrorism (he was NOT the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. He funded them and gave his "blessing," and little else). To learn more about just how fallible al-Qaeda truly is, I suggest you pick up a copy of The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright. The book outlines al-Qaeda's history and the history of modern Islamic extremism as well as the tactics that have been used by multiple intelligence agencies in attempting to track it and/or put a stop to it. A great book, to be sure.

But what does this have to do with Secretary of State Condi Rice? Turns out quite a lot. Because when Rice was the national security adviser, it was her job to brief the president on emails like "Bin Laden Determined to Strike  in U.S." According to a new book coming out by New York Times Reporter Philip Shenon, Rice was more interested in playing the role of supportive wife to President Bush rather than actually attempt to do her job in a responsible manner. If this sounds slightly malicious, you're right--when our national security adviser receives DAILY reports of al-Qaeda's attempts to carry out a terrorist strike against U.S. civilian targets, it should at the VERY least be taken moderately seriously.

Here are a few other emails Rice received that were subsequently ignored, according to Shenon. Read through them and ask yourself whether you would take this threat seriously.

“Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack” (May 3)

“Terrorist Groups Said Co-operating on US Hostage Plot” (May 23)

“Bin Ladin’s Networks’ Plans Advancing” (May 26)

“Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent” (June 23)

“Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats” (June 25)

“Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks” (June 30)

 Is that enough for you? Click here to read the full article.

The reason I'm posting this is because there are a lot of right-wing fantasies running around regarding Condi Rice and a run for the presidency. Not only was Rice a completely incompetent national security adviser, she is currently an extremely incompetent Secretary of State, incompetent to the point that journalists have absolutely no interest in following her around the world.

Our own diplomats think she's doing an awful job.

David Kay, former weapons inspector in Iraq, says she was the worst national security adviser in U.S. history. 

Now let's get to something related but much more important: the 9/11 Commission. Exactly how incompetent was this Republican-led investigation? Quite incompetent, it turns out. And that shouldn't come as any surprise, given that the Republican Party has argued since Reagan that government just doesn't work, which is why Republicans seem to go so far out of their way to prove it. Not only were Repubilcans defending Rice and others in the Bush administration, there is evidence now that they were attempting to discredit Richard Clarke. From ThinkProgress:

"But 9/11 Commission staff director Philip Zelikow was not interested in pursuing criticisms against Rice. Zelikow — who had worked closely with Rice on the Bush transition team in 2000 and 2001 — “made it clear to the team’s investigators that Clarke should not be believed, that his testimony would be suspect.” "

I think one of the reasons there are so many 9/11 conspiracy theories is primarily because the 9/11 commission simply didn't answer enough questions. There are so, so many questions still unanswered, and as long as our government doesn't pursue the truth, those questions will be answered by the fringe theorists and outrage will continue to grow. But make no mistake: the incompetencies of the Bush administration--especially those of Condi Rice--helped ensure 9/11 happened.

Yours,

Ken Brosky
 

Telecommunications companies do NOT deserve retroactive immunity for breaking the law just because the Bush Administration needed to spy on us illegally. Let me tell you something flat out: Telecom companies have PLATOONS of lawyers whose sole job is to determine what is legal and what is illegal. FISA was set up to provide Telecom Companies with a legal way of cooperating with the government. If the Telecom companies STILL need retroactive immunity even with all of these aspects already implemented, then there is NO DOUBT they broke the law with the help of the Bush Administration.

Click here to contact Gwen Moore.
 

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?