It's official...

...and it feels so very weird. As someone who has been a "near miss" my whole life, this is quite an adjustment. Even when I vote, I never win.

Look under the posting, "The Wrong-- and Right-- Place" on:

http://ginafrangello.blogs.com

Blood for Oil: Year 3 Ends

On the third anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq, the Bush Administration seems to be looking for a change of topic. Pew Research Center polls report American citizens’ increasing disapproval of the Iraq War and Bush’s foreign policy; specifically, many Americans now feel that the Iraq War has made us less safe from terrorists (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=272). With midterm elections coming and Democrats looking better in the polls than they have in years, Bush needs to divert attention from Iraq, so he's playing a new fear card: Iran.

In a public radio interview on March 17, Joseph Cirincione, senior associate and director for Non-Proliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, remarked that Cheney, Rice and others in the Bush coterie have been amping up anti-Iranian rhetoric in recent weeks, causing Cirincione to change his previous belief that, "an impending attack on Iran was merely the fear of left-wing bloggers." He now believes a US attack on Iran is likely, though, as he points out, we haven’t got enough military personnel to wage another war. (To hear the full interview, go to http://www.kuow.org/theconversation.asp)

I teach in a town that’s bordered by an Army base and an Air Force base. Many of my students get deployed, or they lose their husbands, wives, fathers, mothers and friends to this war. Those who come back, or know troops who’ve come back, tell stories of sand fleas that bite to the bone, poor wages, poor conditions, insufficient armor. They deserve better than an unjustified and unjustifiable war. And the red herring specter of Iran will never change that.

Fire at Pigs' Peace Sanctuary!

An eminently unique Stanwood, WA animal sanctuary is in need of donations because a Friday morning fire destroyed its education center and took its electricity offline. This article, which includes a link to a donation screen, more completely explains the sanctuary's history, fire and new financial plight:

http://www.pigspeace.org/articles/firekomo.html

Dub-ya, Dubai and the Democrats

The editorial in the March 20th edition of The Nation begins, "Rise by fear, fall by fear." True, the xenophobia Bush complains is fueling others' alarm over the Dubai Ports World deal is the very same xenophobia on which he capitalized to retain his office. But no one can pretend that Bush has had a change of heart or ideology; certainly, he's still using xenophobic fearmongering in his characterizations of Iran, Iraq, North Korea and any other "rogue nation" he'll be sure to lump into the "axis of evil." If we play Greg Palast's favorite "follow the money" game, I'm sure the true motives behind Bush's drive for Dubai will be uncovered, and I'm equally sure his claim that the deal would have strengthened relations with moderate Arab allies is specious at best. Dubai's relinquishment to an American entity seems to have defused the issue, at least in its presentation and airtime in the MSM. Following the money might still be worth the trouble, though.

Later in the same issue of The Nation, Eric Alterman bemoans the Democrats' move away from issues such as, "trade unionism, regulation of the market, and various welfare measures." Alterman quotes Michael Kazin who said, "Liberals [have morphed in the public imagination] from people who looked, dressed and sounded like Woody Guthrie to people who look, dress and sound like Woody Allen." This may seem unrelated to the Dubai Ports World issue unless we think about what it means for our own economy that Bush wishes to outsource our infrastructural jobs, no matter to whom. Where are the Deomcrats who would speak for the American workers? Where are the Democrats who, rather than using Bush's own xenophobic rhetoric against him, would change the terms of the debate? Perhaps this is a good time to recall that Dennis Kucinich, when running (and losing) in the Democratic primaries, noted repeatedly that the American infrastructure was crumbling and that a neo-WPA would create jobs and strengthen our nation from within. One election and two hurricanes later, that view is as much a distant footnote in the MSM as Kucinich's campaign once was.

Line-item veto

Today, nearly all abortions were outlawed in South Dakota, and the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that federal funding could be withheld from colleges and universities that prohibit military recruiters. Given those headlines, Bush's new plug for line-item veto power may seem trifling. But the line-item veto is frightening. It was a frightening proposal under Clinton and is even more frightening under Bush. True, Bush has never vetoed anything; he has always preferred, it seems, to act outside the parameters of authority afforded him by the Constitution. But that doesn't mean his legal powers ought to be expanded. Midyear elections are coming and, due to the Republicans' abysmal recent poll numbers, it is possible Democrats will overtake the House and make gains in the Senate. Setting the line item veto into effect now will guarantee Bush's legal right to cherry-pick Democratic "special interests" to exclude from funding should the Democrats reclaim a majority. These "special interests" typically include programs that benefit the environment, children, the elderly, minorities, civil rights, art, and the indigent.