Korry's blog: "Korry's Blog"

Most liberals never lost sight of the potential for evil in big government. They have consistently opposed government power in matters of personal and political belief. Liberals are not unconcerned with economic liberty, but they have come to believe that the common good requires that social justice be given a higher priority than absolute economic freedom.

Conservatives are—and always have been—on the other side of both questions. They are much more prone than liberals to limiting personal and political liberties, but they place the freedom of an individual to do as he pleases in the economic realm at the top of their concerns. Social justice has held a lower priority for conservatives, from the days of Alexander Hamilton when they favored strong government as a means of protecting their economic privileges to the days of Ronald Reagan when they see government as an instrument of social justice and therefore a threat to their economic position.

 

The American Law Institute, instrumental in structuring the model statutes on which most death sentences are based, has withdrawn its support of such laws.

By Michael Traynor

February 4, 2010

Nearly 50 years ago, as concern grew in the country about the fairness of death penalty laws, the American Law Institute published a "model statute" aimed at helping state lawmakers draft laws to ensure that death sentences were meted out fairly and consistently.

Last fall, the institute withdrew its support for the model death penalty law. The decision was a striking repudiation from the very organization that provided the blueprint for death penalty laws in this country.

The institute, with a membership of more than 4,000 lawyers, judges and law professors of the highest qualifications, is the leading independent organization in the United States producing scholarly work to clarify and improve the law.

In the decade after the institute published its law, which was part of a comprehensive model penal code, the statute became the prototype for death penalty laws across the United States. Some parts of the model -- such as the categorical exclusion of the death penalty for crimes other than murder and for people of limited mental abilities -- withstood the test of time. But the core of the statute, which created a list of factors to guide judges and jurors deciding when to sentence someone to death, has proved unworkable and fostered confusion and injustice.

Now, after searching analysis by our country's top legal minds, the institute has concluded that the system it created does not work and cannot be fixed. It concluded that we cannot devise a death penalty system that will ensure fairness in process or outcome, or even that innocent people will not be executed.

I am speaking for myself, not as a representative of the institute, but I can say with certainty that the institute did not reach these conclusions lightly. It commissioned a special committee and a scholarly study, heard various viewpoints and debated the issues extensively. A strong consensus emerged that capital punishment in this country is riddled with pervasive problems.

The death penalty cannot balance the need for consistency in sentencing with the need for individualized determinations. Its administration is unequal across racial groups. There is a grave lack of resources for defense lawyers. The law is distorted by the politics of judicial elections, and it consumes a disproportionate share of public resources.

California's death penalty exemplifies these problems. Portions of California's law were copied from the institute's model statute. The system now is on the verge of collapse. There are about 700 people on death row in California, and it can take 25 years for mandatory appeals to be completed. Since 1978, California has executed 13 prisoners, while 72 have died of old age or other causes.

Resources are woefully inadequate. More than half of the people on death row don't have access to a constitutionally-required lawyer. A statewide commission found that there remains a serious risk that the state will execute an innocent person. And then there is the cost. Housing a prisoner on death row costs taxpayers $90,000 a year more than if that prisoner were held in another type of high-security prison. The total additional cost for housing all of California's death row inmates is more than $60 million a year.

These problems are entrenched in the death penalty system, both in California and nationwide. The cumulative result: Executions remain as random as lightning strikes, or more so, and that is the very problem the institute's model statute intended to fix. In addition, across the country, at least 139 individuals have been released from death row after establishing their innocence.

The institute's action comes at a time of widespread reevaluation of capital punishment. Fifteen states have abandoned capital punishment, including three in the last three years. In 2009, the country saw the lowest number of death sentences since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976.

We now have decades of experience, which the institute lacked when it proposed its model statute almost 50 years ago. Life without the possibility of parole, now an important alternative in nearly every state, was then virtually untried. To the extent that society needs to punish murderers severely, it can do so far more effectively using tough yet fair prison sentences rather than through an ineffective and extravagant death penalty.

The American Law Institute could have chosen to do nothing. But having laid the intellectual and legal groundwork for the modern death penalty, it concluded that it had a responsibility to act now that the system's fatal flaws have fully emerged.

The withdrawal of the model death penalty statute recognizes that it is impossible to administer the death penalty consistently and fairly, and it therefore should not remain a punishment option in this country. The institute could no longer play a role in legitimizing a failed system. How much longer can any of us?

Michael Traynor is president emeritus of the American Law Institute and lives in Berkeley.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

The Democratic Party got a resounding wake-up call from the voters of Massachusetts on Tuesday. But it's long been clear that 2010 would be a challenging election year for our party.

With few exceptions, the first off-year election in a new president's term has led to big gains for the minority party -- this was true for Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. After two election cycles in which Democrats won most of the close races and almost all of the big ones, Democrats have much more fragile turf to defend this year than usual. Add to that a historic economic crisis, stubborn unemployment and the pain that both have inflicted on millions of Americans, and you have a recipe for a white-knuckled ride for many of our candidates.

But not if Democrats do what the American people sent them to Washington to do.

In 2006 and 2008, voters sent an unmistakable message: We want decisive change. This was not just a change of political parties. Instead of a government that works for the entitled and special interests, a government that looks out for Wall Street, they wanted a government that works better for them, a government that plays the role it should to help foster the security of the middle class.

Many of last year's accomplishments are down payments on those principles.

We still have much to do before November, and time is running short. Every race has unique characteristics, but there are a few general things that Democrats can do to strengthen our hand.

-- Pass a meaningful health insurance reform package without delay. Americans' health and our nation's long-term fiscal health depend on it. I know that the short-term politics are bad. It's a good plan that's become a demonized caricature. But politically speaking, if we do not pass it, the GOP will continue attacking the plan as if we did anyway, and voters will have no ability to measure its upside. If we do pass it, dozens of protections and benefits take effect this year. Parents won't have to worry their children will be denied coverage just because they have a preexisting condition. Workers won't have to worry that their coverage will be dropped because they get sick. Seniors will feel relief from prescription costs. Only if the plan becomes law will the American people see that all the scary things Sarah Palin and others have predicted -- such as the so-called death panels -- were baseless. We own the bill and the health-care votes. We need to get some of the upside. (P.S.: Health care is a jobs creator.)

-- We need to show that we not just are focused on jobs but also create them. Even without a difficult fiscal situation, the government can have only so much direct impact on job creation, on top of the millions of jobs created by the president's early efforts to restart the economy. There are some terrific ideas that we can implement, from tax credits for small businesses to more incentives for green jobs, but full recovery will happen only when the private sector begins hiring in earnest. That's why Democrats must create a strong foundation for long-term growth by addressing health care, energy and education reform. We must also show real leadership by passing some politically difficult measures to help stabilize the economy in the short term. Voters are always smarter than they are given credit for. We need to make our case on the economy and jobs -- and yes, we can remind voters where Republican policies led us -- and if we do, without apology and with force, it will have impact.

-- Make sure voters understand what the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act did for the economy. Rarely does a congressional vote or issue lend itself to this kind of powerful localization. If GOP challengers want to run ads criticizing the recovery act as wasteful, Democratic candidates should lift up the police officers, teachers and construction workers in their state or district, those who are protecting our communities, teaching our children and repairing our roads thanks to the Democrats' leadership. Highlight the small-business owners who have kept their doors open through projects funded by the act.

The recovery act has been stigmatized. We need to paint the real picture, in human terms, of what it meant in 2010. In future elections, it will be clear to all that instead of another Great Depression, Democrats broke the back of the recession with not a single Republican vote in the House. In the long run, this will haunt Republicans, especially since they made the mess.

-- Don't accept any lectures on spending. The GOP took us from a $236 billion surplus when President Bush took office to a $1.3 trillion deficit, with unpaid-for tax cuts for the wealthy, two wars and the Medicare prescription drug program. Republicans' fiscal irresponsibility has never been matched in our country's history. We have potent talking points on health care, honest budgeting and cuts in previously sacrosanct programs. Republicans will try to win disingenuously by running as outsiders. We must make them own their record of disastrous economic policies, exploding deficits, and a failure to even attempt to solve our health care and energy challenges.

During the campaign, who will be whispering in Republican ears? Watching GOP leaders talking about health care the past few days, it was easy to imagine lobbyists and big health insurance executives leaning over their shoulders, urging death to health insurance reform. When it comes to cracking down on the banks and passing tough financial regulatory reform, GOP leaders will be dancing to the tune of Wall Street lobbyists and opposing tougher oversight, as if the financial crisis never happened. We need to lay it out plainly: If you put the GOP back in charge, lobbyists and huge corporate special interests will be back in the driver's seat. Workers and families will get run over, just like they did in the past decade.

-- "Change" is not just about policies. In 2006, Democrats promised to drain the swamp and won back Congress largely because the American people soured on corrupt Republican leadership. Many ethics reforms were put in place by the Democrats. But a recent Gallup poll showed that a record 55 percent of Americans think members of Congress have low ethics, up from only 21 percent in 2000. In particular, we have to make sure the freshman and sophomore members of the House who won in part on transparency and reform issues can show they are delivering. The Republicans will suggest they have changed their spots, but the GOP cannot hold a candle to us on reform issues. Let's make sure we own this space.

-- Run great campaigns. Many Democrats won congressional and statewide races in 2006 and 2008 with ideal conditions. Some races could have been won with mediocre campaigns. Not this year. Our campaigns can leave no stone unturned, from believing in the power of grass-roots volunteers and voter registration, to using technology and data innovatively, to raising money -- especially with big corporate interests now freed up to dump hundreds of millions of dollars to elect those who will do their bidding. Democratic candidates must do everything well. Each one must make sure that the first-time voters from 2008 living in your state or district -- more than 15 million nationwide -- are in their sights. Build a relationship with those voters, organize them and educate them. On Nov. 3, many races are sure to be decided by just a few thousand if not a few hundred votes. These voters can make the difference. We have to show them that their 2008 votes mattered, and passing health insurance reform is one way to start.

-- No bed-wetting. This will be a tough election for our party and for many Republican incumbents as well. Instead of fearing what may happen, let's prove that we have more than just the brains to govern -- that we have the guts to govern. Let's fight like hell, not because we want to preserve our status, but because we sincerely believe too many everyday Americans will continue to lose if Republicans and special interests win.

This country is at a crossroads. We are trying to boost the economy in the short term while also doing the long-term work on health care, energy, education and financial reform that will lay a strong foundation for decades to come. Let's remember why we won in 2008 and deliver on what we promised. If Democrats will show the country we can lead when it's hard, we may not have perfect election results, but November will be nothing like the nightmare that talking heads have forecast.

David Plouffe, campaign manager of Obama for America and Obama-Biden 2008, is the author of "Audacity to Win."

What do the 17 faces above have in common... besides being unattractive, old white men?

They're all conservatives, of course. All Republicans, except for one. Can you name him?

That would be George Wallace (fifth from left), elected Alabama governor four times, and three-time Democratic presidential candidate. It's important to note that once upon a time greedy corporatists had the Republican Party pretty much all to themselves, while the Democratic Party actually contained within its "big tent" the "social" conservatives, mostly from the south. Wallace was one of those. Of all the figures above, he is the only one to ever regret and recant much of the conservative bile he spewed during his active political seasons. It seems even the staunchest of conservative Democrats can at last admit they were wrong.

Republicans? As they will tell you themselves, they are never wrong. But aha, that's their mastery of wordsmithing, phrase-turning and disinformation at work... where the truth is actually the opposite of what they say it is. The sad reality is that they are always wrong. They count on you having a very short memory about that.

The 17 figures above are among the titans of the conservative movement over the past century. Look at those faces. What do you see, aside from a gaggle of sour pusses? Here are some terms that variously apply and describe: corrupt, incompetent, arrogant, elitist, bigot, liar, zealot, crook, bully, thief, uncaring, humorless, short-sighted, mean-spirited, staid, stodgy, ruthless, stubborn, boor, irrational, out-of-touch, coward, thug, disloyal, unethical, alcoholic, drug-abuser, ego-maniac, criminal, dangerous, fascist, traitor, evil.

In the 1960s and 70s those ultra-conservative Democratic politicians, and their true believers, realized they were becoming more and more out of sync with their party and its traditional quest for progress, equality and opportunity for all Americans. You see, conservatives never, ever really want progress, equality and opportunity for all Americans... only for their, particular chosen group: affluent, white males. So en masse they began moving to the Republican Party, which was comparatively untainted by the labor movement, blacks, Asians, Hispanics, scientists, teachers, artists, musicians, non-conformists, environmentalists, women, and other rabble. Today there are very few real conservatives left in the Democratic Party. Surely one of the most conservative Democrats of the modern era was Bill Clinton. As president, he gave the conservatives much of what they wanted, and still they hated him.

Yet even with the influx of millions of former conservative Democrats, the Republican party...particularly following Watergate...seemed in disarray and entirely out of touch with the nation's direction; rapidly evolving progress in the fields of education, arts and sciences, civil rights, women's rights, environmental concerns, workplace safety, industrial and coporate regulations, and more.

But then a strange combination of events turned things around for the conservatives. The tumultuous 60s, the Vietnam War, Watergate, the continuing and seemingly never-ending Cold War, a misfiring economy, the rapid expansion and politicizing of evangelical Christian sects, combined with uninspired leadership at all levels of government culminated in a national crisis of confidence in the mid and late '70s. Democrat Jimmy Carter, certainly one of the most decent human beings to occupy the White House, inherited this malaise, but was unable to turn it around on the basis of his administration's philosophies: honesty, openness, rationality, and long-term planning.

 

By 1980 the voters had grown impatient with Carter, and turned their hopes, dreams and trust over to a Hollywood B-movie actor. Ronald Reagan had not even taken office before he betrayed that trust. But he got away with it, and he would set the stage for a hostile takeover of American government by the nastiest, most ruthless political animals the nation has ever known: the conservatives. 

 http://www.conservativemyths.com/

This is supposed to be a day of remembrance. Remembrance of the attack, remembrance of the national unity which followed it. Most important of all, remembrance of the dead. But 9/11 has become…… a brand name. A Republican campaign slogan. Propaganda of the lowest form. 9/11 has become… 9/11 **with a trademark logo.** 9/11 (**TM**) has sustained a president who long ago should have been dismissed, or impeached. It has kept him and his gang of financial and constitutional **crooks** in office without - literally - any visible means of support. 9/11 (**TM**) has made possible the greatest sleight-of-hand in our nation’s history. The political party in office at the time of the attacks, at the local, state and national levels, the party which **uniformly** ignored the warnings — and the presidential administration already through twenty percent of its first term and no longer wet behind the ears — have not only thus far escaped any **blame** for the malfeasance and criminal neglect that allowed the attacks to occur, but that presidency and that party, have managed to make it seem as if the **other** political party would be solely and irredeemably responsible for any similar catastrophe in the future. Thus, Senator McCain, were you able to accomplish a further inversion of reality at your party’s nominating convention last week. There was the former Mayor of the City of New York — the one who took **no counter-terrorism measure** in his seven years in office between the first attack on the World Trade Center, and the second attack. Nothing, except to insist — despite all advice and warning - that his Emergency Command Center be moved directly **into** the World Trade Center. Yet there was this man, Sir - Rudolph Giuliani — quite succinctly dismissed as “A Noun, a Verb, and 9/11,” and repudiated even by Republican **voters** — transformed into the keynote speaker, Senator McCain — at **your** convention. And his childish, squealing, braying, Tourette’s-like repetition of 9/11 (**TM**), was greeted not as conclusive evidence that he is consumed by massive guilt - hard-earned guilt, in fact - but rather as some kind of political tour-de-force, an endorsement of your Vice Presidential nominee, a rookie governor — a facile and slick con artist. The blind endorsing the bland, to a chorus of 9/11 (**TM**), 9/11 (**TM**), 9/11 (**TM.**) Your ringing mindless cheer of “We’ve Kept You Safe Since Then”… While nobody asks “doesn’t **then** count?” All of this, sadistically disrespecting the dead of New York, and Washington, and Shanksville… **Endorsed**, Senator McCain… **Exploited**, Senator McCain… **Trademarked,** Senator McCain… by **you.** And yet of course **the** exact moment in which Senator McCain’s Republicans showed the nation exactly how far they have fallen from the Better Angels of Mr. **Lincoln’s** Nature, came the **next** night. The television networks were told that the Convention would pause, early in the evening, when **children** could still be watching, for a 9/11 **Tribute**, and they were encouraged to broadcast it. What we got was not a tribute to the **dead** of 9/11, nor even a tribute to the responders, or the singularity of purpose we all felt. The Republicans gave us sociological pornography… a virtual **snuff film**. Years ago, responsible television networks, to the applause of the nation, and the relief of its mental health authorities, voluntarily stopped showing the most graphic of the images of the World Trade Center, except with the strongest of warnings. And yet, the Republicans, at their convention, having virtually seized control of the cable news operations, showed… the worst of it. This is **all** anyone with a conscience can show you of what the Republicans showed you. The actual collapse of the smoking towers. A fleeting image of what might have been a victim leaping to his death from a thousand feet up. And something new. From this angle, ground-level, perfectly framed, images — of the fireball created when the second plane hit the second tower. It was terrifying. After all its object **was**… to **terrify.** Not to commemorate, not to call for unity, not to remember the dead. But to terrify. To open again the horrible wounds, to brand the skin of this nation with the message — as hateful as the terrorists’ own — that you must vote Republican or this will happen again and you will die… And just in case that was **not** enough, to also dishonestly and profanely **conflate** 9/11 with the 1979 **Irahn** Hostage Crisis — to stoke the flames of paranoia about **another** Middle Eastern Nation. This **was** a 9/11 Tribute. Not to the dead, nor to the unity. But a tribute to how valuable 9/11 has been as a political tool for the Republican Party. 9/11… (**TM.**)

January 22, 1973 That was the day the Supreme Court of the United States, with a 7 to 2 decision, overturned a Texas law which prohibited abortion. "If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual , married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." The Supreme Court rendered no opinion as to when life begins. The majority decision, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, said this: "When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary . . . is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." Blackmun examined the U.S. Constitution to see if the Founding Fathers had intended to include prenatal life when they used the word "person" in the document. He concluded that nowhere in the document had he found "any possible pre-natal application." He declared, "The word 'person' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." I've been in many debates about abortion. They are always fraught with people's personal opinions about when life begins, and whether abortion is right or wrong. Let me make this perfectly clear: I don't give a rat's ass what your opinion is in that regard, and I will delete any comment made here that expresses that. When the Roe v. Wade decision was made, abortion was already legal in the state of Washington: " November 3, 1970 Voters Legalize Abortion Referendum 20, legalizing abortion, was approved by a margin of 56 percent (599,959 votes) to 44 percent (462,174 votes), with the strongest support coming from King County. The referendum amended a 1909 law that prohibited all abortions unless necessary to save the life of the mother. The new law legalized abortions for women who were no more than four months pregnant, had lived in Washington for at least 90 days, and had the consent of a parent or guardian (for women under 18) or husband (for married women living with their husbands)." The law in Washington state has since been strengthened, by voter initiative, in case of an eventual overturn of Roe v. Wade: Initiative 120 (Reproductive Privacy Act) was passed by a vote of the people in November 1991 and was subsequently adopted into the Revised Code of Washington, sections 9.02. The purpose of I-120 was to place the standards of the Supreme Court decision, Roe vs Wade, into state law, so that if Roe vs Wade was overturned, women in Washington would continue to have the same rights and protections. The essence of the Reproductive Privacy Act is section RCW 9.02.110 below which states, "The state may not deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose to have an abortion prior to viability of the fetus, or to protect her life or health." Abortion will always be a legal option for women where I live. That's good. But I care about the rights of every woman in the United States, regardless of her location and economic status. Every woman should have the right to every possible choice. That's why I will never vote for a political candidate who is not pro-choice. That's why, for me, the most critical issue in electing a president, is whether they will select pro-choice appointees to the Supreme Court. Now let me reiterate. This is not an invitation to debate the morality of abortion, or for any comments on whether you think it's right or wrong. Because as far as I'm concerned, it's pretty simple. If you think something is wrong, don't do it. But keep your opinions off MY body! And out of my comment box! Have a nice day. :)

My uncle John Edward Williams, the last survivor of my parent's generation in all of my family, just passed away. He was my mother's brother. The sibling to whom she was closest. He and his family lived in Seattle when I was growing up, and my grandmother lived in the "mother-in-law" apartment in the basement of their house. We spent nearly every holiday with my uncle's family when I was growing up. He and Aunt Millie moved to Sacramento quite a few years ago, after he retired from the post office. She passed away about twelve years ago. He served in the US Army for fifteen years, and was a veteran of WWII and the Korean War, I believe. Goodbye, Uncle Johnny.

New York Times laments demise of post-9/11 “national unity” By Bill Van Auken 12 September 2006 The anniversary of 9/11 has been the occasion for a number of editorials and opinion columns lamenting the loss of national unity and international support that were the supposed positive byproducts of the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington five years ago. Nowhere has this theme—a perverse nostalgia for September 12—been promoted more insistently than in the pages of the New York Times. On the day of the anniversary itself, the Times carried a lead editorial entitled simply “9/11/06,” which declared: “The time when we felt drawn together, changed by the shock of what had occurred, lasted long beyond the funerals, ceremonies and promises never to forget. It was a time when the nation was waiting to find out what it was supposed to do, to be called to the task that would give special lasting meaning to the tragedy that it had endured.” The problem, the Times asserts, is that “the call never came.” No one—at least among the circles frequented by the newspaper’s editorial writers—was asked to sacrifice anything. Instead, the result was “tax cuts we didn’t need and an invasion that never would have occurred if every voter’s sons and daughters were eligible for the draft.” The editorial continues: “With no call to work together on some effort greater than ourselves, we were free to relapse into a self-centeredness that became a second national tragedy. We have spent the last few years fighting each other with more avidity than we fight the enemy.” To put it bluntly, this entire line of argumentation is a load of self-serving rubbish that only exposes how far to the right this erstwhile voice of the American establishment’s liberal wing has swung. It is now abundantly clear that the September 11 attacks were seized upon as the pretext for implementing policies that had been planned long before. The orgy of flag-waving patriotism encouraged by the government and the media in the aftermath of the attacks—described by the Times editorial as a “sense of community and purpose”—was designed to prepare public opinion for wars aimed not at defending the American people from terrorism, but militarily conquering oil-rich and geo-strategically important sections of the globe. It also served to distract attention from the fact that in the wake of the most catastrophic intelligence and security failure in US history, not a single government official suffered so much as a demotion. The media, with the Times leading the pack, worked deliberately to suppress any critical analysis of the 9/11 attacks, promote militarism, and portray George W. Bush—whose own actions on September 11 did not bear close scrutiny—as a determined and masterful leader. The shameless brown-nosing of the Times editorialists—who spinelessly acquiesced to the frontal assault on democratic rights and the assumption of unprecedented powers by the White House—is almost embarrassing to recall. On October 12, 2001, for example, a Times editorial headline called the newspaper’s readers’ attention to “Mr. Bush’s New Gravitas,” hailing the semi-literate president as “confident, determined, sure of his purpose and in full command of the complex array of political and military challenges that he faces.” On the basis of his stumbling through disjointed replies to a series of timid questions from the poodles of the White House press corps, it proclaimed him as both “firm in his resolve to protect the nation and fatherly in his calm advice to get on with the life of the country.” This was only one of the many myths spun by the media, using half-truths and outright lies, during those days of “community and purpose.” Among them was the supposedly “decisive leadership” of “America’s mayor,” Rudolph Giuliani, who walked around lower Manhattan in a series of photo-ops that tragic day, while disorganization and chaos reigned all around him. Firefighters never heard the call to evacuate the buildings that buried them because decisions of the Giuliani administration—bound up with a suspect contract—had left them without functioning radios. The city’s emergency command center had to be evacuated because Giuliani had placed it—against the advice of many—on the 23rd floor of a building next to the Twin Towers. It also collapsed, apparently because an emergency fuel system that the city had illegally run up its side ignited. Among those who had suffered the most grievous losses on 9/11, hostility toward the supposedly sainted mayor had by November erupted into mass protests and physical confrontations at “Ground Zero” itself, after Giuliani ordered firefighters to halt their search for human remains, a callous decision driven by the demands of business interests to speed up the revival of the city’s financial district and by the city’s own concerns about overtime costs. The barrage of patriotic propaganda could not paper over for long the immense social fissures that divide the interests of Wall Street from those of America’s working class majority. Bigger and more sinister myths were to follow, all of them assiduously promoted by the Times, which uncritically parroted the administration’s claims to be waging a “war on terrorism” even as it abandoned the hunt for Osama bin Laden and began transferring military resources from Afghanistan to the Persian Gulf in preparation for the long-planned war to conquer Iraq and its oilfields. It was the Times that led the way in promoting the lie that Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction” posed some imminent threat to US security, the principal justification given by the Bush administration for launching its war of aggression. The newspaper’s senior foreign correspondent, Judith Miller, manufactured the most important “revelations” about these non-existent weapons, using the exiled Iraqi political operator and convicted embezzler Ahmed Chalabi as her confidential source. What the Times laments is the fact that ever-growing sections of the American public began seeing through these lies and myths, turning against the war in Iraq and questioning the official version of 9/11 itself. This is the meaning of the newspaper’s disapproving assertion, “We have spent the last few years fighting each other with more avidity than we fight the enemy.” Millions of Americans have concluded that their government is run by a gang of criminals who launched an illegal war based upon lies, not to fight some ubiquitous terrorist “enemy” but to pursue profit interests. They have turned against the war, demanding that it end, and sensing that the most dangerous enemies they face are in the White House. The thrust of the Times argument seems to be: the Bush administration should have made better use of the mass confusion created after 9/11 to pursue the aggressive aims of US imperialism shared by the ruling elite as a whole and by the Democratic and Republican parties alike. Instead, it has botched the job and fueled mass social and political dissension. The newspaper holds out the prospect of a new “coming together” based upon “equality of sacrifice,” including, by implication, a revival of the draft—something that will become an immediate necessity if US imperialism expands its militarist campaign in the Middle East to include a war against Iran. That the generally pro-Democratic Times is broaching a renewal of the draft underscores the fact that such a move will become, if anything, more likely should the Democrats regain control of Congress in the coming elections. Five years on, the myths of September 11 have become ever more threadbare. Defying the torrent of government and media propaganda, as well as the official cover-ups and whitewashes, a growing section of the public has come to question the improbable official story that 19 hijackers—many of them known to US intelligence—managed to organize their attack without America’s vast security apparatus having any foreknowledge, and without the benefit of any form of protection or assistance from within the US government itself. According to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday, nearly half of the American public blame the Bush administration for September 11. Another opinion survey, carried out by the Zogby polling firm in May, indicated that 42 percent of the population believe there has been a cover-up of the 9/11 events (with another 10 percent saying they are unsure), while 45 percent believe there should be a new investigation into all the issues surrounding the attacks, “including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success.” A separate Scripps-Howard/Ohio University poll taken recently found that 36 percent believe it is “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, or allowed them to take place, “because they wanted the US to go to war in the Middle East.” Lamenting again the politically polarized state of American society, the Times editorial asserts that “The country still hungers for something better, for evidence that our leaders also believe in ideas larger than their own political advancement.” This may be what the Times would like to think the mood of most Americans is, but it is but another example of the newspaper’s combination of self-delusion and self-serving myth-making. What the people “hunger for” is the truth, for a genuine and independent investigation into the role played by government officials in the events of 9/11—leading to those responsible being held accountable, both politically and criminally.

The Brownshirting of America By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS James Bovard, the great libertarian champion of our freedom and civil liberties, recently shared with readers his mail from Bush supporters (Lewrockwell.com, October 12). For starters here are some of the salutations: "communist bastard," "asshole," "a piece of trash, scum of the earth." It goes downhill from there. Bush's supporters demand lock-step consensus that Bush is right. They regard truthful reports that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction and was not involved in the September 11 attack on the US--truths now firmly established by the Bush administration's own reports--as treasonous America-bashing. As well, Bovard is interpreted as throwing cold water on the feel-good, macho, Muslim butt-kicking that Bush's invasion of Iraq has come to symbolize for his supporters. "People like you and Michael Moore," one irate reader wrote, "is (sic) what brings down our country." I have received similar responses from conservatives, as, no doubt, have a number of other writers who object to a domestic police state at war with the world. In language reeking with hatred, Heritage Foundtion TownHall readers impolitely informed me that opposing the invasion of Iraq is identical to opposing America, that Bush is the greatest American leader in history and everyone who disagrees with him should be shot before they cause America to lose another war. TownHall's readers were sufficiently frightening to convince the Heritage Foundation to stop posting my columns. Bush's conservative supporters want no debate. They want no facts, no analysis. They want to denounce and to demonize the enemies that the Hannitys, Limbaughs, and Savages of talk radio assure them are everywhere at work destroying their great and noble country. I remember when conservatives favored restraint in foreign policy and wished to limit government power in order to protect civil liberties. Today's young conservatives are Jacobins determined to use government power to impose their will at home and abroad. Where did such "conservatives" come from? Claes Ryn in his important book, America the Virtuous, explains the intellectual evolution of the neoconservatives who lead the Bush administration. For all their defects, however, neocons are thoughtful compared to the world of talk radio, whose inhabitants are trained to shout down everyone else. From whence came the brownshirt movement that slavishly adheres to the neocons' agenda? Three recent books address this question. Thomas Frank in What's the Matter With Kansas, locates the movement in legitimate conservative resentments of people who feel that family, religious, and patriotic values are given short shrift by elitist liberals. These resentments festered and multiplied as offshore production, jobs outsourcing, and immigration took a toll on careers and the American dream. An audience was waiting for rightwing talk radio, which found its stride during the Clinton years. Clinton's evasions made it easy to fall in with show hosts, who spun conspiracies and fabricated a false consciousness for listeners who became increasingly angry. Show hosts, who advertise themselves as truth-tellers in a no-spin zone, quickly figured out that success depends upon constantly confronting listeners with bogymen to be exposed and denounced: war protesters and America-bashers, the French, marrying homosexuals, the liberal media, turncoats, Democrats, and the ACLU. Talk radio's "news stories" do not need to be true. Their importance lies in inflaming resentments and confirming that America's implacable enemies are working resolutely to destroy us. David Brock's The Republican Noise Machine lacks the insights of Thomas Frank's book, but it provides a gossipy history of the rightwing takeover of the US media. Brock is unfair to some people, myself included, and mischaracterizes as rightwing some media personalities who are under rightwing attack. Brock is as blindly committed to his causes as the rightwing zealots he exposes are to theirs. Unlike Frank, he cannot acknowledge that the rightwing has legitimate issues. Nevertheless, Brock makes a credible case that today's conservatives are driven by ideology, not by fact. He argues that their stock in trade is denunciation, not debate. Conservatives don't assess opponents' arguments, they demonize opponents. Truth and falsity are out of the picture; the criteria are: who's good, who's evil, who's patriotic, who's unpatriotic. These are the traits of brownshirts. Brownshirts know they are right. They know their opponents are wrong and regard them as enemies who must be silenced if not exterminated. Some of Brock's quotes from prominent conservative commentators will curl your toes. His description of the rightwing's destruction of an independent media and the "Fairness Doctrine" explain why a recent CNN/Gallup poll found that 42% of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in the September 11 terrorist attack on the US and 32% believe that Saddam Hussein personally planned the attack. A country in which 42% of the population is totally misinformed is not a country where democracy is safe. Today there is no one to correct a lie once it is told. The media, thanks to Republicans, has been concentrated in few hands, and they are not the hands of newsmen. Corporate values rule. If lies sell, sell them. If listeners, viewers, and readers want confirmation of their resentments and beliefs, give it to them. Objectivity turns listeners off and is a money loser. In his book, Cruel and Unusual, Mark Crispin Miller, professor of media studies at New York University, explains how rightwing influence has moved the media away from reporting news to designing our consciousness. "The Age of Information," Miller writes, "has turned out to be an Age of Ignorance." Miller makes a strong case. His description of how CNN and Fox News destroyed the credibility of Scott Ritter, the leading expert on Iraq's weapons, reveals a media completely given over to propaganda. Ritter stood in the way of the neocon's invasion of Iraq. CNN's Miles O'Brien, Eason Jordan, Catherine Callaway, Paula Zahn, Kyra Phillips, Arthel Neville, and Fox News' David Asman and John Gibson portrayed Ritter as a disloyal American, a Ba-athist stooge on the take from Saddam Hussein, and compared him to Jane Fonda in North Vietnam. With this, the rightwing talk radio crazies were off and running. Anyone with the slightest bit of real information about the state of weapons development in Iraq was dismissed as a foreign agent who should be shot for treason. By substituting fiction for reality, the US media took the country to war. The CNN and Fox News "journalists" are as responsible for America's ill-fated invasion of Iraq as Cheney and Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle. With a sizable percentage of the US population now addicted to daily confirmations of their resentments and hatreds, US policy will be increasingly driven by tightly made up minds in pursuit of unrealistic agendas. American troops are in Iraq on false pretenses. No one knows all the fateful consequences of this mistaken adventure. Bush's reelection would be seen as a vindication of aggression, and more aggression would likely follow. A continuing expenditure of blood, money, alliances, good will, and civil liberties is not a future to which to look forward. Paul Craig Roberts is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

In his original article, "Fascism Anyone?", Laurence Britt (interview) compared the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto, and Pinochet and identified 14 characteristics common to those fascist regimes. This page is a collection of news articles dating from the start of the Bush presidency divided into topics relating to each of the 14 points of fascism. Further analysis of American Fascism done by the POAC can be read here. 1.) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism: Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. 2.) Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights: Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. 3.) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. 4.) Supremacy of the Military: Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. 5.) Rampant Sexism: The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy. 6.) Controlled Mass Media: Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. 7.) Obsession with National Security: Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. 8.) Religion and Government are Intertwined: Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. 9.) Corporate Power is Protected: The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. 10.) Labor Power is Suppressed: Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. 11.) Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts: Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts. 12.) Obsession with Crime and Punishment: Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. 13.) Rampant Cronyism and Corruption: Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. 14. Fraudulent Elections: Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. **Here's the web address of the full article: www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm**