Talk Walker

The television campaign against Proposition 87 in California began last week. I watched with interest as a forty-something, hip-looking SUV mom warned of an unseen problem in the initiative “a new energy bureaucracy with no accountability to taxpayers….” Hmm. That’s kind of scary.

When I went to the site nooiltax.com  to check it out, I discovered Prop. 87 to be opposed by “hundreds of organizations, including the California Taxpayers’ Association, California Small Business Alliance, California Chamber of Commerce, California State Firefighters’ Association, labor, senior groups, public safety officials, local governments, and educators.”

That gave me reason for pause, as I had been following this citizen-generated initiative from its inception (See mmmfiles.com/mmm July 21, 2006). Then I went to yeson87.org, and looked for their backers which included the American Lung Association of CA, California Alliance for Retired Americans, California Farmers Union,California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO, California League of Conservation Voters and CalPIRG, as well as the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, The Interfaith Environmental Council, Latino Urban Forum, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Sierra Club, California, Union of Concerned Scientists, Madeleine Albright, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Los Angeles Community College Board of Trustees and John Podesta, just to name a few (actually, about 10%).

How could these two groups be in such direct opposition? Senior groups against the California Alliance for Retired Americans? Educators against the Los Angeles Community College Board of Trustees and Union of Concerned Scientists? The California Taxpayer’s Association against the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights? What was going on?

Digging a little deeper at the Yes On 87 site, I discovered while the above mentioned organizations (and then some) may oppose 87, the funding for the anti-87 campaign is comes from Exxon ($12.05 million), Shell ($12.05 million), Chevron ($12.8 million) and Occidental Petroleum ($3.25 million). Considering these companies reported record profits for last year (Exxon $36.1BILLION, Shell $12.05BILLION, Chevron $14BILLION, and OCCIDENTAL $1.75BILLION), this investment is just little ol’ drop in the bucket for THEIR FUTURES (Never mind Exxon/Mobil recently attempted to get out of paying for the damages incurred by the Exxon-Valdez oil spill of 1989, claiming they could only afford $25million).

So the game is afoot, and it is a huge one. Presently, even though the oil companies pay drilling fees in Louisina, Texas and Alaska in the billions, California receives less than it does in hunting and fishing licenses. Money acquired through passage of this initiative will bring in an additional $4Billion to Calfiornia’s economy which will be used for financial assistance to local governments (already strapped by Schwarzeneggar’s repeal of the vehicle license tax),statewide vocational grants to the tune of $100 million. Additionally, it will help reduce fuel costs, and grow clean-air alternative fuel industries, which in turn will help reduce incidents of asthma, the number one cause for absenteeism in our schools).

No matter what right-wing conservatives have said about California, we have always been proud of our ability to lead the nation. Now that we have picked a big fight with Big Oil, we could use the help of forward thinkers everywhere to help keep our environment clean and hold the oil companies accountable. I do not work for Yes On 87, but I cannot stress enough the importance of donations at this critical time.

I also think it’s great opponents to 87 have been prevented from using “No on 87″ in their URL. Yes on 87 had the foresight to purchase the domain and use it to inform voters on who is really behind No on 87 before going to their site, nooiltax.org.

A few weeks ago, Arianna Huffington commented at her blog , with puzzlement at  Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s recent conversion from a “wise man” to an apparent Bush clone. Quite astutely she had previously assessed Olmert as an independent intellectual, and praised him for his “willingness to stand up to the hard-liners.” She admired his support for a unilateral withdrawel of  Israeli settlers from the Gaza Strip and part of the West Bank, as part of a  ”push for a difficult solution that he believed was the only way for Israel to achieve a lasting peace.”

She was more than taken aback to hear him shift gears, when he told the people of Lebanon last month :  “We regret the pain caused to so many of you, the fact that you had to flee your homes and places of residence and the unintentional harm to innocents, but we do not apologize for it.”

What stood out to her was how much this sounded like Bush. Conversely, many others wondered aloud if the President was now adopting Israel’s foreign policy as its own. Little did she know, how much she was right on the money. According to consortium.news.com, Israeli leaders are privately complaining our President ”egged” Olmert to invade and bomb Lebanon.

Little wonder President Bush was so supportive of Israel bombing Lebanon to “dismantle Hezbollah.”  It was his idea in the first place. Given how over-extended our military is in Iraq, I have often wondered how President Bush planned to carry on the same against Iran. Enter Israel, soon-to-be our only ally in the Middle East. What better way than to have them initiate a proxy war in Lebanon in the name of “self-defense?” Support by the American people and Congress was assured for Israel, and Bush’s support for Olmert would be unquestioned. Then, they could push onto Syria, and when the time was right, go for Iran.

The only trouble was, neither Bush, his neocons, nor Israel had anticipated the strength, support and viability of Hezbollah. Like Iraq, they must have thought it would over in a week or so. However, after a month of destroying Lebanon’s infrastructure, Hezbollah was still capable of lobbing 200 Katusha rockets into northern Israel the day before the ceasefire was to go into effect.

With support for Israel waning, juxtaposed to a more unified Arabic countries and strengthened Hezbollah, it was time to pull out, pull back and save your ass. Once again, we see Bush’s fingerprints: a destroyed economy, thousands of women and children dead, and democracy in retreat.

What the world is now seeing are the fruits the Bush-Cheney cabals’ labors, a puppeteer with no realistic vision, other than being elected President. It’s time for a change. Nothing is more disheartening than knowing our country now looks to the world like a mouse that roars, that is losing its teeth.

While I am relieved the British were able to thwart a large-scale terrorist plot to bomb up to 10 U.S.-bound, trans-Atlantic planes, I am also concerned this Administration will use it as an argument to take away for of our rights to privacy, or justify our foreign policy in Iraq.

President Bush used the moment, while addressing a fundraiser in Wisconsin, to sell current covert and invasive NSA security measures (read spying on Americans).

“We’ve taken a lot of measures to protect the American people. But obviously we still aren’t completely safe, because there are people that still plot and people who want to harm us for what we believe in.”

There may be people who want to harm us, but I suspect it is less for what we believe in, than the harm we have done to them and their regional allies — not to mention standing by as Israel bombs, invades and occupies Lebanon under the guise of disarming and destroying  Hezbollah.

Chris Matthews, on Hardball today, seemed intent on insisting this foil was evidence wiretapping was integral to exposing the plot and terrorists. That much may be true, but the way he is conflating this to justify warrantless wiretaps makes me more than a little nervous.

I have scoured various news outlets, and have yet to find anything that says the British MI5 discovered the plot through blanket, warrantless wiretaps. What I did find was British intelligence agencies had “conducted a major covert counterterrorist operation pursuing leads in the case” for the past several months. This does not sound warrantless.

Fortunately, Democrats are no longer cowering in a corner, afraid to challenge the GOP’s perceptions.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada said, contrary to this event justifying our presence in Iraq, being there has drained the US of vital resources for battling terrorism.

“The Iraq war has diverted our focus and more than $300 billion in resources from the war on terrorism and has created a rallying cry for international terrorists. This latest plot demonstrates the need for the Bush administration and the Congress to change course in Iraq and ensure that we are taking all the steps necessary to protect Americans at home and across the world.”

Heads up, America. We need to be listening to these words, now more than ever. 

Senate Democrats stood their ground Thursday, and blocked a final vote to raise the minimum wage. Not only did they refuse to allow the issue of raising the minimum to be held hostage by Republican efforts to repeal the Estate Tax law permanently, they also refused to be bought off with individual perks for their own states.

In particular, Washington Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray are both to be commended for resisting Republican “sweeteners” such as allowing their constituents  to deduct state and local income taxes from their returns, extending a lapsed research and development tax break, and to provide a $900 million tax break for Weyerhaeuser and other large timber companies (which probably would have helped their campaign funds). Not only were they able to see through the real social costs of the legislation nationwide, but also how it would have impacted 120,000 bartenders waittresses and hotel in thier state by effectively cutting their wages by as much as three dollars an hour.

I am so proud of these and other Senators to finally be able to call the Republican agenda for what it is, without having to fear repercussions of being unpatriotic. 

“They (Republicans) can get 6.6 million Americans an increase in their basic minimum wage as long as we promised that the fattest of cats in America would get a great big bowl of tax cuts,” said Sen. Richard Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate.

But as is often the case, it ain’t over til it’s over. In a last ditch effort, Republican Majority Leader Senator Frist switched his vote so he could bring up the issue again in the fall. However, he added unless the GOP got something in return, the issue would die.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada promised Democrats would hold the Senate in session in autumn if there were not a second vote. “If he is serious about that threat, I hope he knows he has a fight on his hands,” Reid said.

Not only should we support these Senators in November, but we should also elect more Progressive Dems in bothe housese, to help get the job done of serving the people who foot the bill — and pay their salaries.