http://act.boldprogressives.or…

Bernie Sanders has used a bit of Senate finesse to block the renomination of Ben Bernanke to head the Federal Reserve.  Chris Bowers over at Closed Left explains what’s happening, but what it all boils down to is that Sanders has managed to hold up the renomination of one of Bush’s creatures to a hugely important office.  Obama and Wall Street want Bernanke to stay and keep fucking up the economy.  Sanders is looking like one of the only senators willing to go on record and try to stop this from happening.

So please click the link above and thank Bernie for looking out for us.  And while you’re at it, use the Senate phone directory to call your own senator and demand a filibuster of Bernanke’s renomination.  We need someone in there who will actually represent the public interest.

http://www.senate.gov/general/…

NOTE: This is my own version of the entry produced the other day by MinistryOfTruth.

I’m not homeless (not yet), but every day holds over it the threat of existence on the streets.  Although I’ve been technically unemployed since December of 2007, nearly two years, my official period of unemployment goes back to March 2006 – at least.  This is because my last “official” job was for a telemarketing firm that laid me off after four weeks in 2006.  My last actual job was as an Americorps VISTA (a volunteer position that offers a monthly stipend), which went from December 2006 to December 2007.  Since then, I’ve been enrolled in classes at the Parma campus of my local community college.  I’ve had to subsist on what money I get from financial aid as my sole source of “income.”  Often, I must raid the student food bank just to get myself through the weeks between semesters.

I have no car, public transit options are increasingly limited, and the longer I go without work further cripples my chances of obtaining employment.  No one wants to hire someone who can’t get a job.  It’s a vicious catch-22 situation.  I’ve had exactly one interview this year, with a bagel restaurant, and that went nowhere.

Like MinistryOfTruth, I need a job – BADLY.  It has to be in Cleveland’s west side or Middleburg Heights, Ohio, along bus routes.  At this point I couldn’t care less what job it is.  I just need one I can get out to in a timely manner so the manager will deign to hire me.  The problem is that I don’t know what else I can do besides what I’ve been doing, which is to keep my résumé updated and keep filling out applications.  I can’t relocate, because I haven’t got the money.  I can’t get a job because no one will hire me. I’m thirty-five, always broke, jobless, and ever on the brink.  I can’t keep doing this.  So, like MoT, I’m asking you for help.

According to a post on Pennsylvania blog, House speaker Nancy Pelosi will allow a mere twenty minutes of debate on single-payer, albeit indirectly.

The debate will actually be on an amendment put forth by Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York’s 9th District, which would effectively transform the corporate giveaway that is HR 3200 into something very close to the single-payer form offered by Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers’s HR 676.  According to David Swanson, the debate on the Weiner amendment is being used as cover for dropping Kucinich’s amendment, which would allow states to create their own single-payer health insurance systems.

This is probably our last, best chance to improve what is shaping up to be a disastrously bad bill that will force Americans into buying unaffordable insurance.  Click on the House Telephone Directory link, call as many representatives as you can, and demand that they pass the Weiner amendment.  This may be our only shot at getting something that will work for all Americans, instead of simply further enriching Big Insurance.

Geez, I can’t leave you kids alone for even a minute, can I?

Just watch the video after reading the contents of this link by Matt Taibbi.  I’ve lifted a paragraph from Mr. Taibbi so you have a better understanding of exactly what you’re watching.

I have personal experience with… well, let’s call it the unique personality of Alan Grayson. In his capacity as an attorney he once basically threatened to have me dismembered and have my body parts dumped in a tin canister and fired into the center of a burning supernova. And that’s actually underselling the real language he used. We were having a disagreement about the use of information given to me by a certain source in a story about military contracting, and in the middle of what had been a normal contentious argument between two sane adults, dude suddenly assumed this crazy monster-voice and just went medieval on me. He was roaring into the telephone about how he was going to crush me, how I was going to wish I had never messed with him, how I didn’t know who the hell I was dealing with, and so on. One phrase I remember in particular was, “I am going to strip the bark off of you!” It came totally out of the blue and it was like being on the telephone with a metamorphosing werewolf – the whole performance genuinely freaked me out. I may even have peed a little, I can’t remember.

Now, ask yourselves this: are you or are you not glad that this guy seems to be on our side?

This entry builds on what Something the Dog Said and rossl wrote in their own entries.  Before I get to the meat of my own text, I just want to summarize what each of the previous entries state.  Starting any political party, or building an existing one, is going to be a lot of hard work and progressives are going to face an uphill battle regardless of what we do.  If we’re going to break away from the Democrats, however, it’s worth the effort; there are parties such as the Progressives (currently in Vermont and Washington) and the Greens, among others, that have made substantial progress at local and state levels.

That’s the short version of what Something’s and rossl’s entries have to say.  I highly recommend reading them both in full.  Now, on to my own contribution to this subject.  Because I want to provide a real-world context to the topic at hand, I’m going to pick an existing political party (The Progressives), though feel free to substitute your own.  I’m going to lay out some first steps that can be taken to get the ball rolling.

One more thing before I begin: know WHY you are forming a new political party, know what your goals are, and have realistic expectations about what you hope to accomplish.  Don’t hold any illusions.  Unless either the Democrats or the Republicans implode, chances are you’re not going to replace one of them on the national stage.  At most, and if you do things right, you’ll force the Democrats to shift back to the left.  That’s it.  If a new political party does rise to prominence, great, but that is only icing on the proverbial cake.  All you’ll want to do is force one of the major parties to experience an ideological shift to the political left.  Expect at least a generation to pass before you get this result.  It was twenty years between the 1912 election, when Theodore Roosevelt led the Progressive Party and split the presidential election three ways (thus handing it to Democrat Woodrow Wilson) and that of 1932 when Franklin Delano Roosevelt led the New Dealers to power.  It was another generation before the Republicans built their party back up to the point where they could begin taking back political power in government.  Finally, don’t let the progressive movement become subservient to your party – make the party subservient to the progressive movement.  David Sirota explains why far better than I can, so I’ll let his words do it.

And now, without further adieu…

In a report by Editor and Publisher via the Associated Press, talks to keep the Boston Globe newspaper operating while extorting concessions from union employees are being extended.

Deadline on Talks for ‘Boston Globe’ Cuts Extended

Published: May 02, 2009 11:00 AM ET

BOSTON Negotiations between unions at The Boston Globe and its owner, The New York Times Co., will continue after the company agreed to extend its midnight deadline for the newspapers’ employees to make $20 million in concessions.

“Because there has been progress on reaching needed cost savings, The Boston Globe will extend the deadline for reaching complete agreements with its unions until midnight Sunday May 3,” Globe spokesman Robert Powers said in a statement.

Leaders of the Boston Newspaper Guild, the Globe’s largest union, asked for an extension of Friday’s deadline after discovering what they called a $4.5 million accounting error. The Guild, which has been asked to come up with $10 million of the $20 million in concessions, said ownership mistakenly was counting the salaries and benefits of 80 people who have left their jobs at the Globe since the beginning of the year.

“We have given the New York Times Co. and Globe management proposals for deep cuts in our members’ pay and benefits that we believe will save The Boston Globe,” Daniel Totten, Guild president, said in a statement. “We are awaiting the company’s response.”

The concessions sought by the Times Co. could include pay cuts, a reduction in pension contributions and the elimination of lifetime job guarantees for some senior employees. Those guarantees state that the staffers cannot be let go without cause.

The Globe, like many newspapers, is struggling with declines in circulation and advertising. The Globe’s operations lost $50 million last year and are projected to lose $85 million this year.

The Times Co. announced in April that it would close the Globe unless the concessions were met.

Talks are expected to resume Saturday.

(Cross-posted from www.progressive-independence.org.)

Paul Krugman says that prosecuting the previous regime for war crimes is about recovering America’s soul, and as usual he’s absolutely right.

the only way we can regain our moral compass, not just for the sake of our position in the world, but for the sake of our own national conscience, is to investigate how that happened, and, if necessary, to prosecute those responsible.

What about the argument that investigating the Bush administration’s abuses will impede efforts to deal with the crises of today? Even if that were true – even if truth and justice came at a high price – that would arguably be a price we must pay: laws aren’t supposed to be enforced only when convenient. But is there any real reason to believe that the nation would pay a high price for accountability?

For example, would investigating the crimes of the Bush era really divert time and energy needed elsewhere? Let’s be concrete: whose time and energy are we talking about?

Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, wouldn’t be called away from his efforts to rescue the economy. Peter Orszag, the budget director, wouldn’t be called away from his efforts to reform health care. Steven Chu, the energy secretary, wouldn’t be called away from his efforts to limit climate change. Even the president needn’t, and indeed shouldn’t, be involved. All he would have to do is let the Justice Department do its job – which he’s supposed to do in any case – and not get in the way of any Congressional investigations.

I don’t know about you, but I think America is capable of uncovering the truth and enforcing the law even while it goes about its other business.

Still, you might argue – and many do – that revisiting the abuses of the Bush years would undermine the political consensus the president needs to pursue his agenda.

But the answer to that is, what political consensus? There are still, alas, a significant number of people in our political life who stand on the side of the torturers. But these are the same people who have been relentless in their efforts to block President Obama’s attempt to deal with our economic crisis and will be equally relentless in their opposition when he endeavors to deal with health care and climate change. The president cannot lose their good will, because they never offered any.

Cross-posted from www.progressive-independence.org.

A court of appeals claims that prisoners held at Gitmo are not people, and therefore have no rights – much less the right to sue their torturers, according to the following article from the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Full article reproduced below.