Quantcast

Articles | The Nation

News and Features

As he prepares to debate Halliburton CEO turned Vice President Dick Cheney, Senator John Edwards would do well to study up on his Harry Truman.


POVERTY IN WORLD'S RICHEST NATION

Washington, DC

Research support for this article was provided by the Investigative Fund of the Nation Institute.

On February 27, 2001, President Bush expressed his firm opposition to racial profiling--the targeting of individuals by law enforcement officers on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion. "Racial profiling is wrong," he said, promising to "end it in America."

Now, more than three-and-a-half years later, Bush has failed to support a single legislative effort to ban this discriminatory practice. And not surprisingly, his Republican partners in the House and Senate have followed suit, refusing to take action against racial profiling.

In a recent study, Amnesty International found that roughly 32 million people reported that they have been victimized by racial profiling in the United States. The practice has afflicted people of all professions from all walks of life.

They may not be as hot as Bruce Springsteen, Dave Matthews, the Dixie Chicks and other musicians participating in the "Vote for Change" concert tour launching next month in swing states, but the newly-formed group, Scientists and Engineers for Change, plans to harness its formidable brainpower to make the case that Bush has manipulated and politicized science in dangerous and unprecedented ways.

Like their musical counterparts, these scientists--ten of them are Nobel Prize winners--will crisscross the battleground states to argue against a Bush election. They won't be singing or playing guitar but they will be educating voters about the threat a second Bush term poses for honest scientific inquiry in the 21st century. The group, which has no ties to the Kerry campaign, includes a registered Republican and several scientists who are not members of the Democratic Party.

As Nobel prize winner Dr. Douglas Osheroff put it, "I have never played a significant role in politics, but we must begin to address climate change now. To do so, we must have an Administration that listens to the scientific community, not one that manipulates and minimizes scientific output." In case, you needed to be reminded of the key elements of Bush's war on science, please click here to check out my weblog of last July 20.

In his second inaugural address as Governor of
Texas, George W. Bush declared, "Some people
think it's inappropriate to make moral judgments
anymore.

It was not supposed to be this way--at least, that's what Democrats thought. John Kerry was not supposed to be heading into the final stretch of the electio...

The decision of CBS News to delay the broadcast of an investigation into how the Bush administration manipulated intelligence and played upon fears in order to make the case for war with Iraq is the most unsettling development yet in a political year that has beem defined by unsettling moments.

CBS News officials, rocked by the controversy surrounding the journalistic missteps of veteran anchor Dan Rather and "60 Minutes" staffers in putting together what should have been an easy report on President Bush's troubled tenure in the Texas National Guard, have announced that they will wait until after the November 2 election to broadcast a much-anticipated investigation of the steps the administration took to warp the debate about whether to go to war.

The fear, at least as it is officially expressed by CBS, is that revealing the extent of the administration's misdeeds might influence the outcome of the election by letting the American people in on what has really been going on in Washington. Thus, a CBS statement announced, "We now believe it would be inappropriate to air the report so close to the presidential election."

Don't say you weren't warned. Yes, you, that otherwise reasonable centrist voter who might be tempted to cast a "what the heck" vote for George W. Bush.

Groups from all over the country have come together to create the first-ever National Voter Registration Day today to build media interest and to bring out new volunteers for voter registration efforts before most states close their voting rolls on October 4.

You can find organized voter registration activities in most every region, city and town in the US. Click here for a nationwide calendar of events to find out what's happening in your area, and click here for a list of national voting rights projects looking for volunteers.

And make sure that you're registered to vote? MoveOn recently checked public voter files, and, shockingly, found that close to 30 percent of its members were not currently registered. Make sure you're not turned away from the polls on November 2 by clicking here. The process takes about three minutes with The Nation Online's new voting page.

Yesterday, more than fifty national antiwar leaders released a letter to potential Nader voters. Many of the signers are longtime activists who have been central in organizing efforts against the war in Iraq, the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the Bush Administration's policy of pre-emptive war.

"We stand with Nader in demanding that the cause of security and peace be at the top of the national agenda," the letter stated, "But we will not vote for him this election...the only practical way to safeguard the nation and the world is to vote for John Kerry for President of the United States."

Individuals signing the letter--which was organized by United Progressives for Victory--include former Congressman Tom Andrews, Executive Director of Win Without War; Dr. Robert K. Musil, Executive Director and CEO of Physicians for Social Responsibility; Amy Isaacs, National Director, Americans for Democratic Action (ADA); Daniel Ellsberg; David Cortright of the Fourth Freedom Forum; and John Isaacs, President of the Council for a Livable World.

The position that The Nation has taken in the present campaign against both Cox and Harding and in favor of a vote either for Christensen or Debs, has aroused considerable inquiry, much ap

George W. Bush is ready to debate John Kerry.

The chronically underestimated president, who invariably prevails in face-to-face showdowns with his general election opponents, has been cramming for weeks. According to Bush aides, the president listens to tapes of Kerry's past debate performances and speeches while he is traveling and during his daily workouts. He has imported a lanky, boring New Englander, New Hampshire U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg, to play the role of Kerry during practice debates at the ranch in Crawford, Texas. And he is now memorizing poll-tested one liners crafted to devastate the Democratic challenger and capture the headlines on the day after Thursday's debate in Coral Gables, Florida.

For his part, Kerry is prepping at a resort in Wisconsin. After two weeks of honing an increasingly aggressive message regarding the crisis in Iraq and the mismanaged war on terrorism, he will go into the first of three critical debates feeling confident. But if all Kerry does is wrestle Bush for the tough-on-terror mantle, that confidence will prove misplaced.

If there was any lingering doubt that this President rules by sowing division and fear it has been put to rest in these last weeks. As Dana Milbank's chilling front-page story in last Friday's Washington Post details, Bush and leading Republicans dare to argue that a vote for John Kerry is a vote for Al Qaeda.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert says he believes Al Qaeda would prefer a Kerry presidency. GOP Senate candidate John Thune of South Dakota says that his opponent, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle's mild criticism of the war "embolden the enemy" and bring "comfort to America's enemies." Darth Vader VP Cheney strongly suggested that America would be more likely to be attacked if Kerry were elected.

These are Republicans who breed a culture of fundamentalism and intolerance, who betray the guiding and founding values of America. If a truly great Republican--Theodore Roosevelt--were among us today, he would expose the despicable politics of these fifth-rate offspring of the Grand Old Party and tell them--as he told the nation in 1918:

Please shut up, Terry McAuliffe--that is, about George W. Bush and his missing-time in the Texas Air National Guard.

I keep receiving press release...

The US occupation of Iraq is the cause of, not the solution to, the violence and the mounting deaths that followed the invasion.

This is the season of political documentaries with meditations on the degradations of late capitalism as well, of course, as Bush-bashing films, suddenly being seen as commercial fare.

Most of the recent entries in the field aim to take down myths and debunk conventional wisdom. Whether it's Bush's unnecessary war, FOX News's hypocrisy and bias, the dramatic degree to which the corporate sector has impinged on civil society or the rate at which Big Macs will poison you, one hallmark of the new documentaries is their critical/reactive edge.

And, these times certainly do call for activist chroniclers keeping corrupt politicians, corporate flacks and lying diplomats accountable. But we need at least some hope too, a sense that another world really is possible. And what's much more unusual--in journalism as well as film-making--are projects which focus on positive alternatives to the many negative trends afflicting modern society.

Before you place a bid on that original Jeff Koons ceramic Puppy vase, you might want to take a peek at Donald Kuspit's The End of Art.

Say what you will about the sins of the Bush Administration. But credit it with one small but welcome accomplishment: It has moved Arthur Schlesinger Jr.

One hundred years ago, in the wake of England's ruinous victory in the Boer War, a young Liberal politician excoriated the ruling Conservative Party and its imperial scam: "A party of great veste

Translated from the Arabic by Sinan Antoon

On March 9, 2003, a distinguished group of high-ranking politicians and journalists descended on the Bryant Park Hotel to attend a wedding reception for the then-executive editor of the New Yo

When the Bushes need a fixer, they turn to James Baker III. He and his firm benefit.

An anti-Bush backlash is growing among ranchers, hunters and property owners.