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.
 

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
 

I think from now on I'm just going to dedicate my Sunday post to correcting the flaws in columnist Patrick Mcilheran's editorials. Why? Because there are so many, of course! That's flaws, not editorials, for those of you slightly confused.

This week, Patrick made the same dubious claim that there was a connection between al-qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Let me state something unequivically to you: Patrick MciIheran is a liar. He is flat-out lying to you and I'm not afraid to state this.

Saddam had nothing to do with al-qaeda.

Need more?

Saddam had nothing to do with al-qaeda.

Still not convinced?

Saddam had nothing to do with al-qaeda. 

Patrick Mcilheran is attempting to prove a connection by citing a handful of out-of-context sentences from 600,000 pages of documents in order to prove his point, hoping you will be convinced if you believe there is still some sort of mythical liberal bias in the media, hoping against hope that you are still ignorant enough to believe the neoconservative hype that the war in Iraq has been a "good thing."

Patrick is clutching, desperately, to anything he possibly can, knowing full well that America no longer believes it. I think, deep down, he knows that he's wrong, and yet he's still unwilling to admit it, unwilling to believe that he himself was deceived and used as a propaganda tool by the Bush administration to cheerlead our country into an illegal occupation. 

I'm going to post every Sunday to expose Mcilheran's misleading statements for what they truly are. If I can convince just one of his readers to actually go out and look at the actual facts, then this entire blog will be worth it.

Every Sunday. 

There's not better way to celebrate the 5-year anniversary of the illegal Iraq Occupation than with a birthday cake of truth. Yes, fine citizens, it's time for you to come to grips with the painful truth that often coincides with this particular type of mistake. In this, case, the mistakes came from our so-called "experts" on the Middle East who helped cheerlead us into war.

No doubt you know a lot of people right now who still argue that, given the facts involved, the U.S. had no choice to go into war. "Everyone was fooled," they say. "You can't blame the Bush Administration just because their intelligence was faulty." Others you know might even take it a step further and say, "Well, even the experts believed Iraq was a threat. They went on TV and said so!"

Guess what? There WAS a handful of reporters who actually went out to find the truth before the war. Their names were John Walcott, Jonathon Landay, Warren Strobel and Jonathon Landay, among others at the Knight Ridder Newspapers bureau. While Bush was handing off lies as quickly as possible, Knight Ridder was questioning the links between Saddam Hussein and Iraq, questioning every lie that was being spread on the Network news stations. The reporters at Knight Ridder were actually talking to real experts in the middle east, and they were finding no evidence of WMD's in Iraq, no connection to Al Qaeda, and nothing but lies being spread by the Bush Administration.

Click here to read the full story, courtesy of the Huffington Post.

So why weren't these reporters taken more seriously? Why couldn't the Network News anchors find this information themselves? Why did every half-blown "expert" go on TV and completely cheerlead us into a war that's cost us over $1 trillion?

Find the answer. 

So far, the most outrageous "scandal" to hit the Obama campaign has been his relationship with a man by the name of Tony Rezko, and the Clinton campaign has gone out of its way to make the most of this. There's only one problem: Obama has no problem confronting this "scandal." Not only has he confronted it, he's gone out of his way to PROVE his innocence. Recently, he sat down with dozens (dozens!) of reporters at the Chicago Tribune and literally answered EVERY question they had. Every question. He sat there for 96 minutes and literally answered every question thrown at him regarding this so-called "Scandal."

And guess what? When it was all said and done, the editorial board agreed with him. Guess why? You ready? Sit down because this is going to shock you ...

There never was a scandal. Try to think back to the last politician who was willing to sit down with reporters and let them grill him/her on a Scandal. Has it ever happened? Would John McCain sit down with reporters for an hour and answer questions about his ties to lobbyists and the various scandals that have affected him directly?

Barack Obama is going up against one of the toughest, most hard-hitting groups of individuals to have ever exploited the political system: the Clinton campaign. And if this is the worst the Clinton campaign can find, then Obama can stop the Republican Party in its tracks.

Barack Obama also made a speech on race in America, and I think it's a must-watch. As a writer, I think it's well-written. As an American, I think it's well-said.

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.
 

Every Friday, I post homework. Stuff you can read, so you can exercise that lumpy ol' brain of yours that's been put through the gauntlet from too many years of television. The goal is to help you become more informed about the things that really matter, since we obviously can't trust the corporate media anymore. While ABC News is reporting on breaking news about the safety of your pet, the democrats in the House are actually trying to hold the Bush administration accountable for the laws it's broken. So take a few minutes and check these out:

The Great Healthcare Debate - Read about (or listen to) the debate between Rep. Vukmir and Dr. Robert Kraig.

"The Candidate of Permanent Will" - David Sirota's newest column about Hillary Clinton's backing of NAFTA.

Contractor Immunity? - 100,000+ contractors in Iraq and not a single crime committed? That's because they have immunity and can't be prosecuted. There have also allegedly been numerous rapes by KBR employees, all shoved under the table thanks to arbitration agreements.

"A Crisis of Faith" - Article by Paul Krugman, a great economist and tough liberal. 

The Candidates Speak - Watch all of the candidates speak to the Journal-Sentinel editorial board on a variety of issues. Hardly any reading involved!

To be sure, this year's presidential race will most likely be the most disgusting in the history of our country, bar none. Whether Clinton or Obama wins, you'll see a very specific strategy of attack by the Right Wing. Namely, either misogyny or racism. Clinton is already being heckled at speeches by men determined to make her iron their shirts (whatever that truly means ... you have to wonder where these guys are coming from). The Right Wing has already proven that it's not afraid to make any attack seem relevant. Rush Limbaugh, after all, was known to refer to the Clintons' teenage daughter as a dog while they were in the White House, so that should put things in a neat perspective for everyone out there. The first attempt at bringing down the Clinton White House was nothing short of extraordinary. Whether it was frivolous attacks on Slick Willy's sex life or outright accusations of murder, nothing was out of line and the corporate news media ate it all up.

Now let's fast-foreword to an Obama presidential race. I've already received chain email (from my grandmother no less!) suggesting that:

1. Obama is a Muslim.

2. Obama doesn't pledge allegiance to our flag.

3. Obama is implicated in a variety of crimes.

Number 3 shouldn't come as any surprise, given how closely the right wing scrutinizes the Democratic Party but cares nothing about President Bush lying us into a trillion-dollar war. The other two lies are just that--lies. They don't have any credence whatsoever. In fact, it seems the Right Wing (at least in regard to lie number 1) is confusing Obama with another dark-skinned male in Congress. That shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone well-versed in the doings of the Right Wing. Confusing dark-skinned individuals for other dark-skinned individuals seems to be the only thing the Right Wing does consistently. That and stealing elections.

Keep your eyes open and grab a blanket to fight off the cold, because this is going to be one flat-out disgusting presidential race. It may also be historical, if enough people can see through the Right Wing fog.

Yours,

Ken Brosky