Month: June 2008

The Confederate Flag: A Short History

Jon Ponder
"Stainless," the last of the three official national flags of the Confederacy in its three and a half years of existence
“Stainless,” the second of three official national flags of the Confederacy in its three and a half years of sovereignty

Update June 20, 2015: This story from June 2008 is getting attention in light of the right-wing racist terror attack on the Mother Emmanuel Church in Charleston this week.

*

The title of a story I wrote last week — World’s Largest Swastika, Um, Confederate Flag to Fly in Tampa — upset a few people.

Some are proud, lifelong Southerners, who took offense because, as they saw it, comparing the Confederate flag to a swastika was the same as saying Southerners are Nazis. To them, the Confederate flag represents the people of the South, just as the U.S. flag stands for the American people.

As I wrote last week, I used to see the Confederate flag in a more benign light, but my perspective has changed, and not just because I’ve been expatriated from the South for 24 years. My perspective has changed because, in my youth, I saw the flag as a symbol of Southern separateness, of regional pride. But that idealization has been eclipsed by the reality that, whatever the flag may have represented in the past, today it is nothing more than a symbol of hatred and oppression.

I have also become aware that the flag we think of as the Confederate flag is not what has been purported to be. In the Confederacy’s three-and-a-half years of sovereignty, it had three national flags, but today’s Confederate flag was not one of them. Today’s rebel flag is a 20th century adaptation of a battle flag that was square, not rectangular, for one thing.

Still, the Southerners’ visceral reaction to my comparison of the flag to the Nazi emblem prompted me to do a little digging on the history of the Confederate flag. Here’s what I found:

[…]

Jewish Organization Joins Lame Attempt to Swiftboat McCain

Buck Banks

I don’t know whether Hewlett-Packard used its office in Dubai to transship items to Iran that could be used to build weapons of mass destruction. Point is, neither does the National Jewish Democratic Council. But that didn’t stop them from e-mailing me a press release that attempts to smear Republican presidential candidate John McCain through his chief economic advisor, Carly Fiorina, who headed HP 1999-2005. Here’s the release:

Senator John McCain’s Chief Economic Adviser, Carly Fiorina, was CEO of Hewlett-Packard (HP) when the company surreptitiously avoided the trade boycott of Iran. McCain, who recently urged further divestment from Iran, picked Fiorina to be his top adviser on the economy while she is also serving as head of the Republican National Committee Victory Fund. It was under Fiorina’s leadership as CEO that, according to an April 19, 2004, Forbes article titled “Trading With The Enemy,” HP traded with the Iranians.

Just don’t confuse me with the facts, please.

If you want to get around export controls, just sell the product to a front company in Dubai. The middlemen will take it from there … Hewlett-Packard, Dell and Microsoft, among many other U.S. companies, keep Dubai offices and are favorites these days among Iranian traders in Dubai. (Forbes, 4/19/04)

“The National Jewish Council (NJDC) has been arguing that we should judge candidates based on their voting records and public statements,” said Ira N. Forman, Executive Director of NJDC “However, McCain and his allies insist on using guilt by association when looking at Democratic candidates. If this is their standard, then we call on them to explain why McCain’s Chief Economic Adviser oversaw the evasion of the American laws prohibiting Iranian trade in her tenure as CEO of HP.”

The only mention of Hewlett-Packard in the article was excerpted above. Here’s the entire paragraph:

Halliburton is far from the only brand that shows up in Tehran. Hewlett-Packard, Dell and Microsoft, among many other U.S. companies, keep Dubai offices and are favorites these days among Iranian traders in Dubai. Reason? Strong demand for “anything high tech for military or oil services,” says Bolurfrushan of the Iranian Business Council. “In compliance with U.S. trade laws, it is Microsoft’s policy to not sell products to Iran from any of its offices,” says a spokeswoman for the software colossus. (Dell says it follows export controls, too.) To curtail the proliferations, the Department of Commerce is strengthening its regulation that punishes U.S. companies that send goods and know — or have reason to know — those goods could contribute to weapons of mass destruction.

The article insinuates a lot, but, like the NJDC press release, doesn’t prove a thing. But did that stop National Jewish Democratic Council’s Ira Forman from calling on McCain to explain something that is merely an allegation or just an insinuation or maybe not even that?

Where did this swiftboat distortion come from? Virtually the exact quote from the Forbes article can be found on McCainSource.com, run by Progressive Media USA, which was described this way in a story about 527 political influence groups on National Public Radio:

… a 501(c)4 called Progressive Media USA initially said it would spend $40 million bashing McCain on television. But now, a well-connected Democratic strategist says the group can’t raise enough money. Progressive Media’s head, David Brock, didn’t respond to NPR’s interview requests over several weeks.

Now I’m not a fan of John McCain, and I don’t want to see him become president, but I’m even less of a fan of swiftboating, regardless of the target, and this is just another example of that. Nowhere in the Forbes article did it say that Hewlett-Packard definitely traded with Iran, but how many people are going to read the whole four-year-old article to come to that conclusion?

Right, it’s much easier to read the National Jewish Democratic Council’s three-paragraph press release and let them draw your conclusions for you. Just don’t confuse me with the facts, please.

If this is an attempt to swiftboat John McCain, it’s a lame one indeed. But it’s relatively early in the campaign still, and maybe these 527 organizations are just testing the water, experimenting with malicious messages to track how much penetration they can get before they unleash a really significant — or more likely salacious — pack of partial truths or outright lies.

Hey, and let’s see if both John McCain and Barack Obama stick by what they’ve said and actively discourage the 527s from running negative campaigns.

Yeah, right, tell that one to Ira Forman, he’ll believe anything.

Summer 2008 Forecast: Heat, Weather Catastrophes, and Attacks on the Obamas

Trish

It’s going to be a long, hot summer, especially if you’re Barack or Michelle Obama. It seems like somebody gave the signal that attacking Mrs. Obama could be the best way to take down her husband. A string of attempts to catch the possibly future first lady saying or implying things outside the so-called mainstream mindset is proof.

The “whitey” tape is supposedly being held by, alternatively, Karl Rove, the GOP, a major news broadcaster, or Rudy Guiliani

Right-wing web sites recently claimed a tape of Mrs. Obama would show her blaming “whitey” for various problems during a panel at Trinity United Church in 2004. They explain that this tape is being held by, alternatively, Karl Rove, the GOP, a major news broadcaster, or Rudy Guiliani. Supposedly, in reference to Pres. Bush she said, “Whitey attack Iraq, whitey let Katrina happen, whitey leave millions of children behind.” Except that since Michelle Obama doesn’t talk like that, the more likely quote — if she said anything at all, was probably — “Why did he attack Iraq? Why’d he let Katrina happen? Why’d he leave millions of children behind?” Whatever the case, more than a week has passed since the tape was supposedly going to be released and during that time, the bloggers changed the story from Michelle appearing on the panel with Louis Farrakhan to her sharing the stage with Mrs. Louis Farrakhan. And The National Review, which originally licked its chops at the prospect of a such a tape, now doubts its existence altogether.

But that doesn’t mean the Obama attacks are ending. No, the wallopers are just getting warmed up. The New York Post’s Cindy Adams warns the Obamas of the next salvo, this one focused on the candidate himself: a “Swift Book.”

Publisher, Regnery. Ships to stores, July. On shelves, August. Price, $37.95. Title, the longest in captivity: “Scorcher. The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite Candidate.”

The so-called scorching? That his politics-of-change will be liberal politics as usual. That the Rev. Wright thing reveals a deceitful nature. That his inexperience is more dangerous than any threat we have today. That as commander in chief this non-Republican is a serious threat to our national security.

Their projected p.r. TV lineup includes Fox’s “Hannity & Colmes” and “The O’Reilly Factor,” CNN’s Glenn Beck, MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” Radio: Michael Reagan, Laura Ingraham, G. Gordon Liddy.

So cheesy and yet, so tasteless. But like the heat itself, there’s no way around these machinations and no way to drown out the noise. We’ll just have to go through it, knowing that cooler, quieter times are ahead.

Quote du Jour

Buck Banks

The natural liking for the false has several causes: the inheritance of prejudices, which produces an unconscious habit, a slavery; the predominance of the imagination over reason, which affects the understanding; the predominance of the passions over the conscience, which depraves the heart; the predominance of the will over intelligence, which vitiates the character.

— Henri Frederic Amiel (1821-1881), Swiss philosopher

House Set to Vote on Bills of Impeachment against Bush

Jon Ponder

7:58 a.m.: Well, not so much “at this hour,” as C-SPAN suggested. After 40 minutes of “morning business,” the House is debating AMTRAK. Either C-SPAN was wrong or the schedule was altered a bit. I suspect it was the latter.

In the meantime, here’s a bit from CQ Politics on the politics of Kucinich’s impeachment effort:

Under House rules, the chamber must act on the measure within two days.

Judiciary Chairman John Conyers Jr. , D-Mich., declined to say whether his committee would consider the articles.

Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer , questioning whether impeachment hearings were the right use of time remaining on this year’s election-shortened calendar, defended Congress’ record on confronting Bush.

“This Congress, for the first time since this president has been in office, is holding him accountable, doing oversight in terms of Iraq and Afghanistan, domestic policy, and international civil liberties and civil rights,” said Hoyer, D-Md.

Although many view a referral to committee as a burial for the resolution, Kucinich insisted that “referring it to committee indicates that there should be hearings on this.”

He said the record to support impeachment is “so voluminous and well-documented” that hearings ought to be held.

Kucinich said he and his staff originally put together 60 articles of impeachment but cut that list to what he described as the “most powerful” allegations.

Of course, the real reason the Democrats are not moving to impeach Bush is because it is politically helpful to them to have him twisting in the wind with a 28 percent approval rating. They also fear that impeaching Bush could backfire on them the way impeaching Pres. Clinton backfired on the Republicans.

7:00 a.m.: At this hour, the House is preparing to vote on whether to send 35 bills of impeachment against George Bush to the Judiciary Committee. The session is being led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi herself, which is another sign that the measure will fail.

The bills were introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and include allegations that Bush and his top aides lied to the Congress and the American people about the reasons he was invading Iraq.

Buck just posted a finely honed, rhetorically nuanced op-ed piece on the allegations in the impeachment bills.

If the measure were to pass, the bills of impeachment would be sent to the Judiciary Committee for hearings.

Text of the complete Bill of Impeachment is here.

Bush’s Impeachment Should Be On, Not Off, the Table

Buck Banks

Last night we watched two hours of the official reading into the congressional record of Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s motion to impeach President George Bush on C-SPAN. Unfortunately, I couldn’t stay up for the whole thing, which apparently took Kucinich nearly five hours to read on Monday, but I did last through four tag-team readers.

In April 2007, the Ohio Democrat and former presidential candidate introduced articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney. That resolution was killed in November when the Republicans of the House surprisingly voted for a floor debate and the Democrats managed to quickly send it to committee where it was tabled. It was at this time that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued her “impeachment is off the table” line that now is trotted out every time the I-word comes up.

Look, nothing is going to be accomplished in the late months of Bush’s lame-duck administration, aside from possibly going to war with Iran, so there’s nothing to be distracted by, so let’s impeach the bastards.

The Dems argue that if they move to impeach, the Republicans will argue that with all the problems facing the country — two wars (both started by Bush), children’s health care and education at risk (due to Bush’s policies), high oil prices (benefiting the administration’s oil industry cronies) and an economy tanking (due to Bush’s unbridled spending and tax breaks for the rich) — that the Democrats are just playing partisan politics instead of dealing with the nation’s problems (which are almost all directly attributable to George Bush’s disastrous presidency). See where I’m going with this?

Look, nothing is going to be accomplished in the late months of Bush’s lame-duck administration, aside from possibly going to war with Iran. There is no health care proposal pending in the wings, we’re not leaving Iraq anytime soon, nobody knows how to fix the economy and we have an election coming up. So I argue that there’s nothing to be distracted by, let’s impeach the bastards.

I like Dennis Kucinich. Wish I could vote for the little guy for president. He is consistent in his positions and doesn’t mind pointing out the odd flip-flop of his fellow congressmen or rival presidential candidates. His 35-point motion was a masterpiece of rhetorical construction. It was incredibly detailed, listing dates and sources for George Bush’s repeated lies to the American public about the necessity to go to war in Iraq. It was all there, a veritable litany of obfuscation, misdirection and downright whoppers.

Dennis Kucinich made a very strong case that George Bush is a liar and has violated his oath of office and should be impeached.

It is the business of the legislative branch to run herd on the administrative, a responsibility the Congress has consistently shirked. Isn’t it about time we had some accountability on the part of Congress, and Congress in turn would make the Bush administration accountable for its actions?

There likely is some concern that impeachment might hurt the Democrats in the upcoming election. I disagree. By dragging out every lie that Bush and Cheney, et. al., told and associating them with the consequences, and then associating John McCain with more of the same, seems to me it would help the Dem cause. And let Barack Obama deliver the speech justifying impeachment — he could eloquently and effectively counter the Republicans’ arguments and no doubt bolster his own campaign.

We’re not talking about lying about a dalliance with an intern here. We’re talking about a systematic disinformation program implemented by the top level of the Bush administration that has led directly to the death of more than 4,000 U.S. soldiers and at least a million Iraqis.

If that doesn’t belong on the table, what does?

In Europe, Bush Admits Cowboy Talk on Iraq Was a Mistake While Adviser Issues Threat to Iran on Nukes

Jon Ponder

On his final trip to Europe as president, George Bush acknowledged that his Wild West lingo in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq was overly bellicose:

“I think that in retrospect I could have used a different tone, a different rhetoric,” Bush told the Wednesday edition of the Times of London, referring to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

He acknowledged that phrases like “bring them on” and “dead or alive” had given the impression he was “not a man of peace.”

Of course, the main objective of the European trip for this man of peace is to drum up European support for attacking Iran. The European Union plans to offer Iran a new package of political and economic incentives in return for giving up its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Bush left it to his national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, to issue bellicose threats toward Iran masked in the language of diplomacy:

“We’re going to make this offer, and if the Iranian regime denies the Iranian people the benefit of the offer, then we’re going to have to turn up the pressure and I think everybody recognizes that.”

Europeans are watching the U.S. presidential campaign with interest. They are aware that Barack Obama’s policy toward Iran would emphasize diplomacy over threats of mass violence.

They are also aware that Republican John McCain would continue Bush’s policies and has summed up his approach on this issue by singing, “Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.”

Pensito Review Editor Linked to Subprime Lending Scandal

Trish

All the Republican angst over one of the people on Barack Obama’s vice presidential selection committee, Jim Johnson, and his ties to Countrywide Financial has got me thinking. I’d like to make a confession: like Johnson, I have a “special” mortgage from Countrywide, one of the culprits in the subprime lending meltdown.

“I am not vetting my VP search committee for their mortgages. There is a game that can be played — everybody who is tangentially related to my campaign is going to have a whole host of relationships,” Obama told reporters in St. Louis.

“I would have to hire the vetter to vet the vetters. At some point, we just asked people to do their assignments,” the Illinois senator said.

True, but I for one would like to admit, right here and now, that my 30-year first mortgage was taken years ago at a rate not available in the current market. Further, the loan on my nearly 60-year-old home would probably face increased scrutiny if it were not for my dogged insistence on making my payment each month. I doubt many people would get this type of preferential treatment, including offers from Countrywide to take out a second mortgage — a cold, hard cash payout — every single time I call them about anything no matter how unrelated, and I, for one, feel better coming clean about it.

Thank you for your understanding.

Is Dick Cheney’s Life Worth $4 Million?

Buck Banks

dick_cheney.jpgThat’s what it will cost to keep Vice President Dick Cheney under Secret Service Protection for at least six months after he leaves office, if a bipartisan bill in the House of Representatives passes next week, according to the conservative Politico:

A bipartisan bill the House is scheduled to take up next week would require the Secret Service to protect Vice President Dick Cheney for six months after he leaves office. The Homeland Security Department would be authorized to determine if additional protection is necessary after the initial deadline ends.

The bill (H.R. 5938) was introduced by House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), ranking member of the committee. Reps. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) and Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), the chairman and ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security subcommittee, are also co-sponsors of the bill.

The legislation would require the Secret Service to protect the vice president and his or her spouse — as well as any children 16 or under — for six months after leaving office. Cheney would be the first vice president covered by the new bill, but it would also apply to future holders of the office.

Once the six-month deadline is reached, the secretary of Homeland Security is authorized “to direct the Secret Service to provide temporary protection for any of these individuals at any time thereafter” if a senior DHS official ” determines that information or conditions warrant such protection.”

Recent vice presidents, including Al Gore and Dan Quayle, were given Secret Serice protection after leaving office, but that was under temporary legislation or executive order, according to a May 16 Congressional Budget Office report. To give Cheney that same protection would cost $4 million next year, CBO estimated.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has been given Secret Service protection since she left the White House in 2001, and Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) have received it as well as part of their presidential candidacies.

Former presidents get lifetime Secret Service coverage after leaving office.

So who would want to do Cheney harm? For starters, any of the tens of thousands of inconsolable relatives of soldiers killed or wounded in Iraq.

But why should we have to pay for it? Cheney should hire some goons from Blackwater for protection, he’ll probably qualify for the corporate Haliburton discount. Of course, with those hired guns on the job, at some point there’s a good chance it will be open season on Cheney’s friends and neighbors.

Oh well, collateral damage ….