As alluded to earlier this week, the next battle for progressives won't be against Republicans, but against members of our own party:

…we've elected some shockingly conservative Democrats in recent years. Their constituency is strong enough to make the Blue Dog Coalition a powerful force in the House, to make fighting telecom companies and FISA "reforms" much harder than it should be, and to continue to pass funding for the war again and again, over the objections of most Americans. Come 2008, with multiple pickups in the House and Senate, we'll have won the battle, but the war is just starting.

…

Primary challenges are a must. Grassroots pressure against conservative Democrats is crucial. We must raise the cost of being conservative, no matter the party. Only then will we actually pass a progressive agenda, and only then will we get a chance to look at other important but disregarded issues like prison reform, ending the drug war, or changing our imperialist foreign policy.

People are already doing this important work. Blue America is going up with television, radio, billboard, and print ads against Chris Carney, the Pennsylvania Blue Dog Democrat:

Carney is a so-called "Blue Dog" Democrat who continuously sides with the Bush administration and supports its most radical policies. In addition to his leading role in demanding warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty, he has repeatedly voted against timetables to end the war in Iraq. He is a close associate of Douglas Feith, with whom he worked on pre-war "intelligence" at the Rumsfeld Pentagon, and Carney still claims that "there were links between Iraq and Al Qaeda." Unsurprisingly, then, Carney has spoken out against Congressional investigations into those responsible for pre-war intelligence "failures" (which would include himself and Feith), calling such investigations a "major distraction." Among his most enthusiastic supporters in 2006 was Richard Perle.

I'm proud to report that The Seminal had a hand in designing some of these ads!

Here’s my biggest problem with Matt Bai’s longwinded window on the mad cow mind of presidential wannabe John W. McCain: it’s complete and utter hogwash.

Desperately seeking an angle by which to sell editors and America alike on yet another feature article on the faux-maverick of the moment, Bai rolls out this theory at the beginning of his Sunday New York Times Magazine cover story:

There is a feeling among some of McCain’s fellow [Vietnam] veterans that his break with them on Iraq can be traced, at least partly, to his markedly different experience in Vietnam. McCain’s comrades in the Senate will not talk about this publicly. They are wary of seeming to denigrate McCain’s service, marked by his legendary endurance in a Hanoi prison camp, when in fact they remain, to this day, in awe of it. And yet in private discussions with friends and colleagues, some of them have pointed out that McCain, who was shot down and captured in 1967, spent the worst and most costly years of the war sealed away, both from the rice paddies of Indochina and from the outside world. During those years, McCain did not share the disillusioning and morally jarring experiences of soldiers like Kerry, Webb and Hagel, who found themselves unable to recognize their enemy in the confusion of the jungle; he never underwent the conversion that caused Kerry, for one, to toss away some of his war decorations during a protest at the Capitol. Whatever anger McCain felt remained focused on his captors, not on his own superiors back in Washington.

Net-net: McCain, locked up and tortured to his breaking point by what he understood to be his country’s enemy, never got to see for himself that quagmires like the war in Indochina cannot be “won” in any meaningful way through the use of any amount of US military force. Senators John Kerry, Jim Webb, and Chuck Hagel (and former Senator Max Cleland), having stayed out of North Vietnamese hands, can now understand the futility of the Bush-McCain approach to the Iraqi war and occupation.

That former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey (who is quoted in the article dismissing the “McCain sees it differently because of his war experience” theory) was a hawk on Iraq, despite serving all of his time in Vietnam outside of a POW camp, is not broached by Bai.

I do not mean to dispute the idea that a man’s experiences in war might color his worldview from there on out, or even that Senator McCain’s view might be different because of his imprisonment. Rather, I take issue with the premise that McCain’s stance on matters Iraq can be explained through this particular glossy, psych-lite analysis.

As you may have heard, John McCain attacked Barack Obama over the weekend in a speech to the National Rifle Association:

Of course, McCain has historically had an adversarial relationship with the NRA. In addition to criticizing his support for background checks for gunshow purchases, the NRA opposed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform effort because it threatened their influence in Washington. Here is McCain's response to their objection in 2000:

This weekend's speech was yet another instance of McCain pandering to elements within the Republican base that he's alienated in the past, an activity he does most days.

In this instance, pandering means going before a group of people who have nothing to do with foreign policy, but everything to do with weaponry, and having a fearmongering/warmongering fest. Apparently, McCain has decided that the best strategy for national security is to stoke our enemies as much as possible, and that anyone who dares suggest we embrace diplomacy and talk unconditionally — as in, in the spirit of making peace — with leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez is naive and reckless and unfit to lead.

However, McCain never enlightens us as to what the consequences of such "recklessness" would be. Listening to his speech on Saturday, I couldn't help but wonder what exactly he think will happen if we talk to our enemies. Maybe I'm missing something, but I think the worst that can happen is that they don't listen and keep on doing exactly what they've been doing. Never has McCain explained how talking to our enemies puts is in greater danger than we are now, yet he describes the idea as naive and reckless.

Notwithstanding the arguments for why I think talking to our enemies puts us in less danger, here's what I think: McCain never takes the "naive and reckless" explanation to its logical conclusion because he can't — because he secretly knows that adopting a position of respect, equality, non-aggression, and cooperation toward our enemies will probably lead to progress. I say that on some level, the man grasps that when you approach an adversary and start talking, and embrace similarities before addressing differences, you can neutralize them as a threat and advance your own interests.

That is why he's talking to his old enemies, the NRA. McCain didn't go the NRA and talk tough to them about campaign finance reform, did he? Rather, he went their and talked about what they have in common — their commitment to national security. Wouldn't it be nice, though, if he embraced the spirit of reconciliation that seemed to overcome him at the NRA, and used it to actually make Americans safer?

Call a man an enemy and you guarantee he'll be one. Call him a friend (or perhaps more realistically, call him "a fellow sovereign state, entitled to its own leaders and belief systems") and you suddenly have something to talk about. We have nothing to lose by acknowledging our enemies' abroad and listening to their grievances, though we certainly have lots to gain, and if McCain were fit to be president he would know there is nothing naive and reckless about saying so.

In February I wrote about Obama strong stands on media issues. Obama is now bringing more tough talk, with promises to directly go after excessive media consolidation that is not properly serving consumers.

Reuters, via Stoller:

Democrat Barack Obama said on Sunday he would pursue a vigorous antitrust policy if he becomes U.S. president and singled out the media industry as one area where government regulators would need to be watchful as consolidation increases.

Obama:

"There are going to be areas, in the media for example where we're seeing more and more consolidation, that I think (it) is legitimate to ask…is the consumer being served?"

It's difficult to find a good clip of his standup, so I'm also posting this documentary clip to put his legal troubles in perspective:

(originally posted at MWC News)

[Editor's Note: Stories like this underscore the need for aid to countries we have military operations in. War disproportionately affects the poor. -- Jason Rosenbaum]

Sayed Ali (not his real name) said he sold his 11-year-old daughter, Rabia, for US$2,000 to a man in Sheberghan city, Jawzjan Province in northern Afghanistan to feed his wife and three younger children.

With food prices in Afghanistan having soared over the past few months and the 40-year-old father unable to find work, he said had no other choice but to sell his daughter to save his family from starvation.

“Even animals don’t sell their children, because they love them and want to die for them, not to mention human beings. For too many days I stood next to roads and asked people for work, but always ended up disappointed. I couldn’t go home empty-handed and disappoint my starving children, so I used to scavenge in garbage and collect leftover food.

“I would lie to my family and say I bought them food from the market. But now it’s even hard to find anything edible in the garbage because of [increasing] food prices. People now eat all their food because it’s very expensive and also the numbers of those who scavenge in garbage has increased.

“Because I am illiterate, no one will give me a job. I am illiterate because of war and poverty. I didn’t go to school because my parents wanted me to work. My children also don't go to school and they’ll also be brought up illiterate like me.

“How can someone sell his own child? It’s like selling your eyes or selling your heart!

“As no one would give me work I had no other option but to sell my lovely daughter. I sold her only to save the rest of my family. I sold her only to buy food for my younger children who otherwise would have died from hunger.

“I know people will say I am a cruel and merciless father who sold his own child, but those who say so don't know my hardship and have never felt the hunger that my family suffers.

“I know other poor people who don’t have children and say, if necessary, they will blow themselves up [in a suicide attack] and kill other people in order to feed their families.

“I hope the government will hear my voice and help people like me to find jobs and feed our families.”

Copyright © IRIN 2008. All rights reserved.

Impotent in his efforts against Mexico's drug cartels, the police chief in Juarez resigned. During Guillermo Prieto's career, the drug trade in Mexico, particularly in border towns like Juarez, has become increasingly violent. Recently Edgardo Millan, Mexico's top policeman (equivalent to the director of the FBI), was shot and killed inside his home in Mexico City.

Back in Juarez, police have discovered several "death houses," each equipped with a hybrid lawn / graveyard. Twelve bodies were found at 3633 Parsioneros Street, nine on Cocoyoc, and 36 on Pedregal. All the homes are linked to a narcotics trafficking.

Venezuela is accusing the United States of flying over its airspace. The US says it'll look into it.

A summit between Latin American and EU leaders took place in Peru last Friday. Vowing to fight poverty, climate change and the rising price of food, leaders urged co-operation on the production of biofuels, promotion of rural farming, and free trade (how can rural farming and free trade be part of the same solution? I'm not sure, and details weren't forthcoming).

Leonel Fernandez, the president of the Dominican Republic, was re-elected to a third term on Sunday. He won his third term with enough votes to avoid a run-off between him and his principle opponent Michel Vargas.

To end on a high note, Latino artists are doing their part to raise awareness and funds for impoverished children in Latin America. Over the weekend over 30 renowned musicians performed in the annual ALAS concert, started in 2006 by singers Shakira, Miguel Bose and Alejandro Sanz. Over 380,000 attended.

Well folks, it’s been about two or three months since I’ve really written anything so I’ll try to be as brief as possible…for I know how distracted y’all get some long rants, so a few quick user friendly thoughts:

Does anyone else think that both Bill and Hillary Clinton have destroyed everything we liked about them during the 90s? They really will do anything to win and they never accept defeat. It’s sad to watch them…it’s like watching American Idol auditions: Sometimes you laugh but most of the time you just feel bad for them then you hate yourself for actually watching it…but hot damn that Simon Cowell is quite the witty Brit. I’m developing a drinking game around American Idol, and it mostly involves guessing what sedative Paula Abdul is currently taking.

Speaking of the Clintons, is anyone else as sick of Terry McCauliffe as I am? He never campaigned as hard for John Kerry in 2004 when he was the freaking Democratic Party Chairman…it makes you wonder about all those Clinton “rule the world” conspiracy theories…someone call Mel Gibson, it’s time to make a movie!

Was anyone else NOT shocked with the startling revelation that voters in West Virginia are *gasp* racist? I mean, why is the Clinton camp so happy with the fact that their voters are racist idiots? Also, if any Democrat thinks they're actually going to win West Virginia in November then give me some of what they’re smoking. Obama was smart to skip it, just a waste of time.

So, I know you’re all wondering what ole Jake has been up to in his absence right? Well, not a whole lot. I pretty much avoided talking about politics as much as possible…especially after Obama lost Ohio and Texas…that was the last straw. Bartenders remember that night, how bad is that? Other than that, my band just finished recording a new album and it’s being mixed as I type, so that’s cool. My mom visited Seattle and, at the age of 55, finally started her first bar tab…and had I not paid it for her she would’ve walked out on her first bar tab and been 86’d from her first bar. After a 6 month boycott I finally got my hair cut…I was starting to look like a West Virginia voter, but hot damn did my mullet blow in the wind!

That’s all I have for now, but I plan on writing more frequently now that things are finally not boring in the world of Politics…I’m sure McCain will say something that pisses me off in no time. So be prepared for a VP candidate breakdown for both parties, tales from the bars of Seattle, and other tidbits I feel like sharing with the interweb (it’s a series of tubes!)

The BBC is reporting that USAid to Afghanistan and Pakistan is (brace yourself) less efficient than it could be.

[A] regular complaint about USAid-funded contractors is that too much of the money that could be spent building a school or training teachers in the target country is instead spent on salaries of well-qualified experts and on overheads such as their offices in the US or Europe.

For instance, schools being built in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata) have to be earthquake-proof as per US standards.

"That is more expensive. It needs an expertise that will probably bring with it some overhead," said Mr Ward.

The counter argument given by many is that there are standard designs for such schools and those can be implemented locally.

While this particular scenario is unique, criticism of USAid is nothing new. Failures and flaws have dogged it from the start, and have come from multiple fronts.

Some criticize it as an "opiate for the Third World," using rhetoric similar to that employed when denouncing programs such as welfare. As Reagan put it, "unless a nation puts its own financial and economic house in order, no amount of aid will produce progress."

Others fault the application of the aid. James Bovard, writing for the Cato Institute, said:

American foreign aid has often harmed the Third World poor. In Indonesia, the government confiscated subsistence farmers' meager plots for AID-financed irrigation canals. In Mali, farmers were forced to sell their crops at giveaway prices to a joint project of AID and the Mali government. In Egypt, Haiti, and elsewhere, farmers have seen the prices for their own crops nose-dive when U.S. free food has been given to their countries.

Men like Marvin Weinbaum, an ex-state department analyst, see a problem in the predatory behavior of US firms. "I know of a case where the US company never built the schools in Afghanistan for which it was awarded a contract," said Weinbaum.

In light of all these failures, USAid seems more about the act than the effect. So long as we give money we have a conscience-cleanser, regardless of its consequences. But is it as simple, or as cynical, as that? Is the United States government really trying to help out other countries? Or are we just maintaining the semblance of a nation on the moral high-ground, while adding another laying for corrupt bureaucrats to skim off?
Take the thread and run with it.