From the Wall Street Journal May 30th, 2007

"Bush ordered new U.S economic sanctions to pressure Sudan's government to stop bloodshed in Darfur that the administration has referred to as genocide. Sudan's government condemned the actions."

The discussion about the "genocide" in Darfur is a discussion that has not taken place in Washington, at least not seriously. The question is what should be done about Darfur? Especially in light of the U.N. and the world's non-response to the situation in Rwanda in 1994 where roughly 800,000 innocent civilians were killed. When the U.N. was first established, FDR said "Never again." He was speaking about the tragedy of the extermination and genocide of the Jewish people by the Nazi Regime. Is the world listening to those words? If so, how? If not, then why?

When considering military action, let’s reflect on Iraq quickly. They had no WMD's. There was no connection to 9/11, and Iraq never cooperated with Al-Qaeda. President Bush then relied on the fact that Saddam Hussein was a bad man. Well, if he is a bad man, what about the men in Darfur? Will the United States, and the world, sit idle and watch genocide take place again, roughly 13 years after Rwanda. Why do countries invade other countries? Is it only when their own self-interest is at stake? What about the sake of humanity? How can a President that says he values life, not do anything about Darfur?

Here is the bigger question. Does the U.N. have the will power and capability to stop atrocities like Darfur? When the U.N. was first proposed, the plan was to have a ready and standing army contributed by countries, so action could be taken around the world at a moments notice. Anyone that has watched NATO or U.N. military operations realizes how tricky and cumbersome they can be. Should the U.N. develop a standing and ready military force? Does the Security Council need to be rethought? Does the U.N. have what it needs to enforce its values, principles, aims and goals? If not, what should be done? More importantly in the 2004 Presidential debates, both Kerry and Bush stated genocide was taking place in Sudan. Will the world stand by, 13 years after Rwanda and about 60 years after WWII, and let the heinous acts of genocide take place once again? If we do, here is one more question. Does mankind ever learn from its mistakes?

Today's USA Today is running a story on hidden debt the federal government's accounting rules aren't telling us about:

The federal government recorded a $1.3 trillion loss last year — far more than the official $248 billion deficit — when corporate-style accounting standards are used, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

The loss reflects a continued deterioration in the finances of Social Security and government retirement programs for civil servants and military personnel. The loss — equal to $11,434 per household — is more than Americans paid in income taxes in 2006.

"We're on an unsustainable path and doing a great disservice to future generations," says Chris Chocola, a former Republican member of Congress from Indiana and corporate chief executive who is pushing for more accurate federal accounting.

Modern accounting requires that corporations, state governments and local governments count expenses immediately when a transaction occurs, even if the payment will be made later.

The federal government does not follow the rule, so promises for Social Security and Medicare don't show up when the government reports its financial condition.

Bottom line: Taxpayers are now on the hook for a record $59.1 trillion in liabilities, a 2.3% increase from 2006. That amount is equal to $516,348 for every U.S. household. By comparison, U.S. households owe an average of $112,043 for mortgages, car loans, credit cards and all other debt combined.

There's more at the linked article.

This post is cross-posted on the College Democrats of Madison blog.

Russel Wallace over at Reform Dem writes:

I saw a press release recently from the DNC claiming that far more jobs were created under Clinton than under Bush. Not exactly news, but it got me wondering if there was a historical trend in terms of job creation under Democratic verses Republican presidents.

Turns out there is, and the difference is HUGE, an average of 2.1 million jobs per year for Democrats verses 1.1 million per year for Republicans since 1939 when the government first started collecting employment data. Here's a chart showing average yearly job creation under every president since Roosevelt:


(Click on image for a larger version)

I made the chart using data from the Department of Labor. Republicans can claim that one or two Presidents represent an aberration, but it's hard to argue with seventy years of data. Proof that if you work for a living you should vote Democratic!

This post is cross-posted on the College Democrats of Madison blog.

In case you didn't hear, one of the Religious Right's most outspoken and controversial leaders died earlier this week.

While I certainly send my condolences to Reverend Falwell's family - as we all do - I cannot but help feel a lasting bitterness. His words and actions have caused alot of personal pain to alot of people over the years, and I think it is important that this is acknowledged, even as we pay our respects.

Jerry Falwell's work was vital in the takeover of the Republican Party by religious zealots - the same zealots that intimidate legislators into passing anti-gay legislation. Their recent preferences include gay marriage bans, like the ones that we fought last year on our campuses. I guess you might say the issue is a bit personal for me, as I worked for Fair Wisconsin during the last election cycle as the Madison Campus Organizer.

His death gives us an opportunity reflect on where our society has gone under the control of these radical groups.

Falwell, in response to the terrorist attacks on 9/11, remarked:

I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.

It is exactly this kind of rhetoric that continues to poision the political environment for many of our friends, family, co-workers, teachers, and perhaps even ourselves. It is this kind of rhetoric that tells citizens that it's okay to make LGBT Americans citizen class citizens. It is this kind of rhetoric that says prejudice is okay.

It needs to stop. Now.

While CDW certainly does not endorse the views of other blogs, I certainly understand the anger expressed by some (like Wonkette) at Jerry Falwell. Considering his body of work, one can certainly understand the frustration expressed by many on the left. NPR has a more balanced and fair take on the issue.

I encourage you to take a few minutes, read different perspectives, and reflect on how the work of the Religious Right has impacted your own life - whether that is restrictions on birth control to the marginalization of your LGBT peers. As we look toward 2008, a year when Democrats are offering voters an unprecedent slate of experienced, diverse candidates, it quickly becomes clear that the bigotry and prejudice of past generations can no longer be tolerated. We have an unprecedent opportunity to build our chapters in the state, striving ever to make them more inclusive and for all citizens, in contrast to our peers in the Collgege Republicans. We stand for a politics that champions rights and respect for all people. In 2008, Wisconsin College Democrats will show that our anger about the injustices done to our gay allies, in 2006 and previously, will not go away. Instead, we will deliver the state to the Democratic candidate for a sixth consecutive election, and we will play a vital role in the takeover of the State Assembly.

The death of Reverend Falwell gives us an opportunity to acknowledge the past, and work toward a better future. I look forward to taking the advantage of this opportunity in 2008 and beyond, and I encourage you to get engaged in the effort to make a better America for all citizens.

Today on the southside of Chicago a 25 year old man was shot and killed. He was just another victim of street violence. There is nothing particularly notable about this story. It didn't make the local evening news, and especially not national news, just a small blurb in the Chicago Tribune. This begs the question then, what has happened to our society where innocent people can be murdered , and no one even acknowledges their death? Something must be done to change this. Yes, more police is always an option... but that doesn't fix the problem, rather it is just a way to control the problem. We need to become more proactive when dealing with guns. In Wisconsin alone, there were over 10,0o0 violent crimes with a firearm between 2000 and 2002 according to NEA data.
I must pause to make the point, that in no way would tighter gun control laws take away firearms from responsible guns owners, who often purchase guns for hunting. Rather the restrictions should be placed on things such as the sale of handguns, or the number rounds available. The Virginia Tech Massacre highlights the point that it has become far too easy for just anyone to purchase a gun. Clearly there are flaws in the screening process. As such much more emphasis needs to be put on reforming the system.

I love the sound of music. No, I don't mean the musical (although, I do enjoy seeing Julie Andrews signing about the hills every now and then). What I'm talking about is the music of campaigns. I'm sure we have all been to rally after rally and heard the same songs over and over. They become an important way to get everyone excited and energized.

One of the best parts, though, is when candidates pick their "theme song." For Bill Clinton, it was Fleetwood Mac's "Don't Stop." For Al Gore, it was BTO's "You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet." For John Kerry, it was Bruce Springsteen's "No Surrender." These songs all seem to fight the candidates in some way and really help tell people something about the campaign.

What will the theme be for the Democratic candidates? According to CNN, Senator Clinton is allowing visitors to her website to vote on what her campaign theme song will be. She lists options such as KT Tunstall, Shania Twain, and Smashmouth, among others, on her website.

I'm sure she is just the first of many candidates who will be allowing supporters to help pick a theme song. I'm anxious to see what she goes with, as well as the other candidates.

Maybe someone will go with one of my favorites: "Don't Stop Believin" by Journey. If they do, that may help me make up my mind in who to support. After all, I do love the sound of music.

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 bill was passed by the House of Representatives on May 3. This bill will include sexual orientation and gender identity in its legislation. It is about time that the crimes committed against transgenders and transsexuals because of their gender identity is considered a hate crime. However, even if the bill is passed by the senate the President has already threatened to veto the bill. If the bill does go through and he does veto it, that would make it his third veto. The passing of this bill with no veto would be crucial to he LGBT community. Without it, heartless acts of violence will continue to happen to individuals that are transsexual. I personally think that this bill should include a lot more classifications of hate crimes. This issue is rather important to me and should be just as important to any of you. You never know, your friend could have a violent crime committed against them just because they like to dress in women's clothing, and the person who hurt your friend would only get a slap on the wrists. It is time for our Senate to get this bill through. Even if he vetoes it, they should overrule his so called judgement. Anybody against this bill should realize it is not a gay rights bill, it is a human rights bill. In the United Sates we are supposed to be free from persecution. It is time for anti-LGBT people to realize that WE ARE PEOPLE TOO!

What can we do: Write to our senators. Organize in your community or campus. Notify people what is going in senate and have them write too.

Question: Is it truly fair for some with gender issues to get attacked because of their gender identity, and nothing happen to the perpetrator?

Yesterday I was notified by good friend of a story on the CNN daily ticker. It was startling and interesting news. It caught me completely off guard. He then sent me the link and I read the story for myself. I have included the small description of the story below to best describe the news story.

From The Washington Times:

BILLION DOLLAR MIKE: New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is prepared to spend an unprecedented $1 billion of his own$5.5 billion personal fortune for a third-party presidential campaign, personal friends of the mayor tell The Washington Times. "He has set aside $1 billion to go for it," confided a long-time business adviser to the Republican mayor. "The thinking about where it will come from and do we have it is over, and the answer is yes, we can do it." Another personal friend and fellow Republican said in recent days that Mr. Bloomberg, who is a social liberal and fiscal conservative, has "lowered the bar" and upped the ante for a final decision on making a run. The mayor has told close associates he will make a third-party run if he thinks he can influence the national debate and has said he will spend up to $1 billion.

After reading this story one can ask many questions about our political and electoral system. First what does it say that roughly a half billion dollars or more will be more than likely spent between the Republican and Democratic Candidates for the 08 Presidential Race? What does it say that a billionaire like Mr. Bloomberg could easily jump into the race with money like this? Was our electoral college even designed to have a three way presidential race? In a time where campaign finance reform is a widely talked about issue, questions like these are ones that deserve answers and are important to the debate. Not to mention what would happen and how would the 08 race be altered if Mr. Bloomberg entered the 08 race? In a presidential race that is already roaring, and with so many candidates to chose from, will there be one more?

One last question, in 04 there were also other third party candidates. They tired hard to get on the Televised debates to represent their views and their respective parties. None of them made it though. None of them also had the kind of money Mr. Bloomberg did. If by chance Mr. Bloomberg enters the race, would he be allowed to be on the Televised debates. If so why would he be allowed to be, if the 04 third party candidates weren't?

The bottom line, is what exactly does money buy someone in politics and in a presidential election?

Since the 2008 Presidential Campaign appears to have begun quite early, ( thanks in no small part to the media) it is very telling that already the first potshots and blunders are already taking place. First we go to Jones county, Iowa, where it appears that the Rudy Giuliani campaign made a major public relations and scheduling error.
Now you have to feel bad for the couple who's farm the rally was supposed to be on, imagine if you got your entire town ready for a campaign rally, and heck even Grand ma was going to fly out. In any event, it certainly makes the campaign seem feeble, and perhaps even a little too fresh for the big leagues. late update

Now for the potshots, most reasonable ( and sane) people take little to no credence in almost anything Rush "OxyContin" Limbaugh has to say these days, but after seeing this fairly despicable display on the news the other day it seemed that I had to bring it up. It is so unfortunate that American politics continues to be cheapened by the usual agents of intolerance. Sure maybe Rush was attempting to make a legitimate political point, but yet again he takes it to the personal, racial level. Sure he didn't coin the term "Magic Negro", but surely he does not blame the left for having his staff put their time and effort into creating a song and even video for the term. It is point such as this in politics where I am truly at a loss for words, do we as Americans really find each other that foul? that file? that we resort to these sorts of attacks?

Or is this just yet another sign of desperation in a right wing that has seen their majorities vanish in congress, whose President is at an all time low, and seems poised to lose the 2008 presidential race?

-Nicholas Reindl
Director, Diversity Issues for College Democrats of Wisconsin

The decision made by the Supreme Court three weeks ago to uphold the 2003 law banning partial birth abortion proved that the new justices, Alito and Roberts, provide the solid conservative majority to uphold the ban.

Despite the fact that the Supreme Court Justices have, in the past, taken into consideration the health of the woman in abortion cases, they still chose to uphold a law that lacks a clause about protecting women's health.

This ban, and the upholding of it, is harmful to women's health, it interferes with medical decision making and does not allow doctor's to provide the best medical care and options for their patients. It also interferes with the personal decisions that should be left up to the woman .

The 5-4 vote shows the willingness of this court to possibly revisit the 1973 case Roe v. Wade and a woman's basic right to an abortion. The door is now open for attacks on safe and legal abortion procedures without any regard to women's health.

As constituents we need to elect more pro-choice Congresspersons and Presidents who will respect and protect the fundamental rights of freedom and privacy for our mothers, wives, sisters and friends.

This entry is cross posted in the UW-Madison College Democrats blog

For the majority of his reign as President, George W. Bush has had a complicit Congress, willing to blindly pass his legislative agenda. Despite all the bad years in this administration, 2007 might be the worst for the inhabitants of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

With the taking of Congress by the Democratic Party in 2006, the rubber stamp has been discarded, and oversight has returned to Washington. President Bush can no longer bank on his legislation sailing through, and has lost his ability to execute the war with no one questioning his actions. The Democrats have ended the President's ability to stumble through the war without resistance.

Without the rubber stamp, and with the popularity of Nixon amid Watergate, he's using the only desperate weapon he has left: the veto pen.

After his veto of the Iraq funding bill with timetables, Rep. Dave Obey (D-WI) has come up with a new plan, to incrementally fund the war instead of giving the President another blank check. There are rumors again that the President will veto anything that doesn't give him limitless authority to continue to botch a crucial and deadly conflict.

While the insurgency is unfortunately far from its last throes as Vice-President Cheney announced infamously, it is clear that we are hearing the death rattle of a desperate Bush Administration.

-Dylan Jambrek, Communications Director for the College Democrats of Wisconsin

Dear Ronald Reagan,

As a boy with a plethora of conservative friends, I am worried like a caring mother. Where have all the Republicans gone? The global warming sun is shining, but they are not sporting your infamous optimism. Rather, they are donning this spring’s flip-flops in a sad, elementary attempt to make friends. Don’t worry though; I won’t hold their age and inexperience against them. However, I cannot help but notice that compassionate conservatism has sold its soul for an unhealthy dose of flip-floppery.

Could it be that some Republicans are slowly arriving at the realization that they do not reside in reality, but rather in a far-off imaginary world where climate change is still a hoax, Brokeback Mountain never happened, and God hates Harry Potter? Well, sometimes life just doesn’t turn out to be what you expected. Republican candidates are now backing off their rose-tinted views of Iraq and close-minded opposition to global warming and evolution. Slowly but surely, they are becoming Democratized.

It speaks volumes when the leading “Republican” presidential candidate is a pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-civil union, pro-rent control New Yorker. Naturally, many members of the Republican base are not happy about this development, so they went searching for an answer in the hills of Tennessee. No, it’s not Al Gore, but a man by the name of Fred Thompson. I must say, it is rather disheartening when the supposed savior of conservatism is none other than Arthur Branch on “Law and Order.” Don’t get me wrong, it’s a thoroughly wonderful television program and I’m sure Fred Thompson is a swell guy, but how many actors does one party really need? Maybe it would be nice to get a little diversity in the cast. Perhaps a woman, or a minority, or even Karl Rove would find a way to put a sick twist in this all too predictable plot.

All gripes aside, I thank you President Reagan for making Mr. Gorbachev tear down that wall. Walls are such a superficial solution to complex problems. Maybe your disciples could take a lesson in that when dealing with our border security.

Anyway, thanks for making the 1980s the 1980s and God Bless America.

Democratically yours,
Aaron J. Tinjum

Really, who was watching the Republican debate last Thursday? I, for one, was not, due to MSNBC's insistance on being a cable channel. Luckily for me, the entire (incredibly painful) thing is up on YouTube.

There were so many highlights in this hour-and-a-half long joint press conference. Let's just start with the sheer number of candidates: 10. That means, not accounting for questions from the moderators, that each candidate could expect to speak for only 9 minutes. Not really long enough for us to distinguish one rich, white old man from the other nine rich, old white men. But onto the actual fluff subtance...

A few main things really stood out for me. First was absolute and vehement denial by three of the candidates, Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, and Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas. See them play "pander to the far-right of their party" in this clip:



I'm at a complete loss for words. Admittedly, all three tried to retract their statement, or hand raising, on Friday, but I don't think I will ever trust anyone who claims not to believe in something we learned in middle school science, even if they do modify their statements later. Amazing.

And then there was the issue of stem cell research. Wisconsin is the birthplace of stem cell research, and our own former Governor Tommy Thompson couldn't even bring himself to say that he supports something that would bring huge amounts of research and money to our state (maybe because stem cell research isn't as promising as RFID chips in humans...), not to mention all the lives it could save.

And there was more, much more, but watch it for yourself. Or save yourself some time during finals, and just read the Republican party's platform. Because that's all you missed.

Today, the Bush Administration vetoed the Iraq Appropriations Bill. Today, on the anniversary of his premature announcement of the end of major combat operations in Iraq. While I'm sure it was planned by Democratic leadership in Congress, I still can't help but marvel at the irony. Does the Bush Administration lack any political tact? They had 10 days to veto the bill, and they could have simply waited 24 hours to avoid the easy story for the press and the Democrats to jump on.

I suppose this is the first administration to have the convenience of ignoring public opinion. It helps when you are potentially the worst administration in American History.

The failure of the Bush Administration has not been the multiple scandals. Yes, they failed to stop 9/11, failed to put the necessary resources in Afghanistan, respond to the crisis in Hurricane Katrina. Yes, they got us into an unnecessary war and one that was disastrous to the United States' geopolitical status. Yes, they have displayed a level of croneyism not seen since the 19th century.

However, these transgressions were not the downfall of the Bush Administration. The downfall came when they failed to adapt to anything that ever happened during their reign. They screwed up a war, they did it again. They were caught lying, they repeated it. Their policy failed, they stuck with it.

The Administration's pure and utter hubris brought them to the brink, and their failure to learn from mistakes pushed them over.

Republicans can thank the Bush Administration for making them the minority in 2006, and an even smaller minority in 2008, as well as their loss of the Oval Office.

-Dylan Jambrek, Comm. Director CDW.